Smoking in Public Places

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What discussions they have had with the authorities in the Republic of Ireland, Italy and the United States on lessons to be learnt from the introduction of restrictions on smoking in public places.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the organisers of today's No Smoking Day, which on past evidence will mean that more than 1 million smokers will try to quit.
	There have been regular contacts and meetings with the Republic Ireland and New York. Italy reduced its restrictions only in January, and we are watching developments. We shall take into account any evidence from international developments that is relevant to this country's situation. Our proposals for England are based on extensive public consultation, which will continue while leading up to the legislation promised in the Choosing Health White Paper.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. I am glad to hear that we are open to learning from abroad. Does he agree that in the countries to which the Question refers many disasters were foretold but have yet to come about? Also, as it is national No Smoking Day, can he update us on the Government's tobacco control strategy, particularly on the reduction in the prevalence of smoking and on tackling advertising?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I thank my noble friend and can confirm that we are a learning government who continue to learn from others, with possibly one or two exceptions, in the area of health policy.
	Several things that may be of interest to my noble friend and the House have happened since the Choosing Health White Paper. We have ended the practice of point-of-sale advertising and ratified the World Health Organisation's framework convention on tobacco control. With regard to the NHS Stop Smoking Service, we have published the latest statistics for the six months from April to September 2004. They show that around 201,500 people set a quit date in that six-month period and around 107,800 people quit after four weeks.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have just enjoyed the most delicious lunch with the all-party smokers committee. Does the Minister share my views on the restaurateur quoted in the newspapers recently, who said, "This is my restaurant. If people do not wish to come to my restaurant, so be it. If they wish to come, and smoke a cigarette, equally so be it"?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness set a very good example to her lunching companions in the way she conducted herself.

Lord Chan: My Lords, what have the Government learned from other countries about tackling health inequalities, and particularly about helping those who are vulnerable, such as pregnant mothers and people from black and minority ethnic groups, to stop smoking?

Lord Warner: My Lords, as I said earlier, we watch the experience of other countries, and we have drawn on that experience in the Choosing Health White Paper, where we set out clearly our proposals for tackling the problems of second-hand smoke. In the media campaigns that we run on quitting smoking, we take account of the needs of all groups of people in this country.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, how many Ministers in Her Majesty's Government still smoke?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I believe that data protection legislation prevents me being able to reveal that.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, would the Minister care to indicate whether the Government have any plans to ban the use of incense in places of public worship?

Lord Warner: No, my Lords, but if the right reverend Prelate wants us to work on that, I am sure that we could.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that in the three areas discussed in the Question, there was extensive consultation with affected parties before any restrictions were introduced? Can he confirm that that is also the position of Her Majesty's Government?

Lord Warner: My Lords, we consulted extensively in this area and shall continue to do so.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, raises a very interesting point. Clearly it is open to restaurateurs to decide to pickle themselves and open to clients of that restaurant to decide not to go there. But what about the staff of such restaurants? What protection does my noble friend believe that they should be offered in such circumstances?

Lord Warner: My Lords, all employers are required to take account of the needs of their staff and we have the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that they do so.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, every few weeks statistics accumulate, clearly demonstrating not only the effect of smoking on human health of those who smoke cigarettes or pipes but the effect of passive smoking on others who are exposed to second-hand smoke. In the light of recent evidence and the Government's own White Paper, when will the Government complete the consultation process and introduce legislation to restrict smoking in public places?

Lord Warner: My Lords, today we published our delivery plan for the Choosing Health White Paper and identified in detail the work to be taken forward. The Government remain committed, as we made clear in the White Paper, that by the end of 2006 all government departments and the NHS will be smoke free. By the end of 2007 all enclosed public places and workplaces except for some licensed premises and membership clubs, will be smoke free. By the end of 2008, all licensed premises where food is prepared or served will be smoke free. This Government keep their promises.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, what discussions have there been with the authorities of the countries named in the Question about the cost of compliance with the change in the law? Who bears the cost of compliance with those changes?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not have the details of all the exchanges that took place in the contacts, consultations and meetings. I shall look into the matter and, if I can shed any light for the noble Baroness, write to her.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, does the Minister agree that people who suffer from stress should be allowed to choose to smoke to reduce it?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I think that we have made our policy on smoking very clear over a long period.

Cancer Treatment

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to the recent study which concluded that cancer patients are suffering increased treatment delays, and that 70 per cent of patients have to wait more than the recommended four weeks for radiotherapy.

Lord Warner: My Lords, for breast cancer, more than 97 per cent of women receive treatment within one month from diagnosis to first treatment and two months from urgent referral to first treatment. From the end of 2005, there will be a maximum two-month wait from urgent referral to treatment and a maximum one-month wait from diagnosis to first treatment for all cancers. As a result of improved performance, referrals for radiotherapy have increased rapidly in recent years. We are increasing the numbers of therapy radiographers in post and in training, making better use of existing staff, and making unprecedented investment in new radiotherapy equipment. For example, more than 200 new linear accelerators will have been procured by the end of 2005, an increase in provision by more than 50 per cent under this Government.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, he will be aware that the reports of both the Reform group and the National Audit Office state that there are problems with people getting their radiotherapy. The figures show that, in 2003, 72 per cent of cases were outside the maximum acceptable delay, whereas in 1998 that figure was 32 per cent. Rather than an improvement, that is the opposite. The Minister cited breast cancer, but let us be fair in terms of the sexes. Those suffering prostate cancer feel the most disadvantaged of all cancer patients. They feel that their treatments are improving less and more slowly than any others.

Lord Warner: My Lords, let us have a few detached facts. I think that the noble Baroness referred to the report by the Royal College of Radiologists. It also said:
	"As a result of the National Cancer Plan, substantial new investment in radiotherapy equipment has helped to improve the poor technology base for radiotherapy, which was previously a major problem".
	I shall turn that from BMJ-ese into the language of the Sun. It means that the opposition did not invest in the NHS for cancer and that this Government have. The work done on cancer now shows that we have the fastest-falling death rates in the world for lung cancer in men and breast cancer in women. Premature deaths from all cancers are down 12.2 per cent since 1996, which represents 33,000 lives saved.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, what are we doing about the shortage of PET scanners?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government have introduced a major programme of investment in diagnostic equipment, which is continuing. We have delivered, through central programmes, 86 new MRI scanners, 180 CT scanners and more than 730 items of breast-screening equipment. The Secretary of State recently announced that NHS patients would get speedier access to high-quality diagnostic tests in future, thanks to a £1 billion procurement programme.

Lord Laming: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is difficult to reconcile his optimistic answers with the findings of the report, Cancer care in the NHS, by the Reform group? It suggests that patients are not getting good value for money, that the Cancer Plan is not delivering well, and that equipment is lying unused. If that is so, is there a plan in operation that will remedy those failings?

Lord Warner: My Lords, we have to remember that the increased waiting times for radiotherapy are a direct knock-on effect of the progress made in other areas. That is the professional view given to me. Due to the ageing population and better screening, the number of people diagnosed with cancer early enough to benefit from treatment continues to increase. We have one of the best international records in recent years in preventing premature deaths from cancer.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, given that cancer patients are among those subject to operations being cancelled at short notice, and given the Government's highly publicised reaction to the cancellations of Mrs Dixon's operations, will the Minister undertake to write to all Members of Parliament asking them how many constituency cases like that of Mrs Dixon they have, and to publish the results?

Lord Warner: My Lords, we do not pursue a policy of using human shields to deflect public attention from our absence of any credible policies on healthcare.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, in the Minister's response to the noble Baroness, he referred to times from diagnosis. What is the Government's response to the increased waiting time from the point of referral to the point of diagnosis?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I have already answered the question on that issue and explained where we are changing policy during 2005.

Baroness Hooper: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the national shortage of crucial staff, particularly radiographers, has contributed significantly to the disappointing progress of the Cancer Plan? Does he not therefore also agree that a more imaginative use not only of the staff, but of the expensive equipment—working longer hours and weekends, and making the maximum use of equipment and staff—would be a way forward?

Lord Warner: My Lords, therapy radiographer numbers have increased by 18 per cent between 1997 and 2003, which is significant. University training places for therapy radiographers have doubled—an increase of 108 per cent since 1997. Those increases mean that we are now starting to see more staff coming into service. In order to receive the money to purchase the new linear accelerators that I mentioned, trusts have to demonstrate that they have the staff to operate them.
	Just for good measure, the number of clinical oncologists has risen from 287 to 358 since 1997—a huge increase. The workforce in this area is expanding, although the Benches opposite find that difficult to accept.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, may I invite my noble friend to have a pint with my ex-RAF friend, Bernard Donovan, who was suffering from chest pains? Eight days after going to see his GP, he had a major heart bypass operation at Morriston Hospital in Swansea and is now recovering well.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be pleased that my noble friend's friend is receiving the good treatment that we have come to expect from the NHS under this Government. But I cannot engage in the party opposite's policy of using individual cases to disguise its own absence of policy.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the noble Lord remember the case of "Jennifer's ear"? Furthermore, does he recollect what the late Iain Macleod said of the late Harold Wilson—that, like a sundial, he only counts the sunny hours?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am often congratulated on my unbridled optimism in this world.

Baroness Wall of New Barnet: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that within statistics there are also individual experiences? I wish to share one with my noble friend and seek his view about the sad news in my family that my brother-in-law was diagnosed with lung cancer on 10 February and yesterday received radiotherapy treatment for the first time. That is a good news story and I hope that the treatment will be successful from his point of view.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am sure we all hope that my noble friend's brother-in-law recovers as speedily as possible.

Organophosphates

The Countess of Mar: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the statement attributed to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the Farmers Guardian of 4 February that "there is no evidence that organophosphate dips have affected the health of sheep farmers" accurately reflects their current position.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government have engaged in a substantial amount of research on organophosphates. Some of their effects are well established, but some studies on the long-term effects remain to be completed and the results of all the studies will need to be reviewed on their completion. I am advised that, to date, none of the completed studies has provided conclusive evidence to support the hypothesis that exposure to organophosphates is the cause of long-term ill health reported by some sheep farmers.
	Therefore, in that sense, and in relation to long-term ill health, the statement cited in the Question is an accurate reflection of the scientific evidence available at this time.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that it is some 13 years since I started asking questions about organophosphates? The House has been very tolerant with me in all that time. Can he explain, if organophosphates are safe and they have been tested for their safety, efficacy and their quality, why farmers have been required since that time to wear space suits when they are dipping and to have a proficiency certificate to allow them to buy sheep dips? Why are all those precautions taken if they are safe?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I hope that my reply did not indicate that organophosphates are safe in whichever manner they are used. The requirements on use, including the closed system for sheep dips, are to prevent exposure to acute doses of organophosphates. It has been established that acute doses cause extremely severe reactions and, indeed, that continued exposure can cause reactions.
	The question that is still being researched is whether, if you stop being exposed to organophosphates, your health is affected in the long term. The jury is still out on that, because those studies have not all been completed and, when they are, we will need to assess them.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there used to be a great amount of dud science washing about the corridors of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? That seems to have been inherited by his present department. Will he be sensible and try to teach his department that when the noble Countess comes forward on this subject, she is much more often right than are any government advisers?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think that the noble Countess would accept that I normally take her comments in these debates very seriously indeed. The Question related to whether there was particular scientific evidence of one of the long-term effects of organophosphates and I hope that I was accurately reporting that the studies the Government have commissioned have not yet revealed such an effect—but those studies are not yet complete. I was simply giving a factual report and not querying the credentials of the noble Countess.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, given the Minister's response, he seems to agree that many sheep farmers are affected in the medium term by using organophosphates. Many of us know of serious long-term effects. My own health was adversely affected by one single usage of OP sheep dip from a container that was not properly labelled. If recognition of Gulf War syndrome has been given to those subjected to OP, why has there not been such acknowledgement for sheep farmers, or are the Minister's lawyers and the Treasury preventing that recognition, due to possible compensation claims?

Lord Whitty: No, my Lords, this has nothing to do with compensation claims. It is clearly established that if you spill organophosphates in a substantial way while you are engaged in sheep dipping, or possibly in other contexts, there will be serious medical effects. The issue is whether, if you stop using and being exposed to OPs, the conditions continue, or whether they work their way through the system. The research is addressing that area, where there is some doubt, but it suggests that, so far, there is not a long-term effect of that nature. But the research has yet to be completed.

Lord Christopher: My Lords, does that research also cover any effects that may exist for those who work with sheep wool and sheep skins? I understand that the chemical does not get into the meat—which relieves me, because I eat a lot of sheep meat—but if there is a risk, it could well arise from those sources.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am glad to hear that my noble friend eats a lot of sheep meat and I trust that it is good English, Welsh or Scottish lamb. The specific effects of organophosphates through wool or hide may not have been addressed directly, but the issue has been covered in some of the earlier research. The key question is the level of exposure, which would have to be measured according to the level of usage against the clinical symptoms. As far as I am aware—and I will write to the noble Lord if there is any different information—the incidence from handling sheep wool or hide has not been established.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is ample neurological evidence to indicate that acute organophosphate intoxication can have serious, damaging effects on the nervous system, particularly the peripheral nervous system? Is he satisfied that the current health and safety regulations are sufficiently stringent to protect farmers from such events?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the current requirements, both in terms of the container and the advice on usage are very strict indeed. That has not always been the case in the past.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, how does the Minister reconcile his response to the noble Countess with the recommendation of the all-party group that OPs should, for the moment, be removed from production and use and that the Government should consider compensating those who had been affected in the past? His Answer does not have any link with the group's recommendation.

Lord Whitty: No, my Lords, because the Answer was related to the research, rather than to the opinions of the all-party group. We have received a report relatively recently from the all-party group and we will be giving a considered response. It contains some reference to scientific reports, but the Question was about whether there was any proof in relation to a quote that was ascribed to a Defra official. The answer is that there is no proof, as yet, but that the research is ongoing.

China: EU Arms Sales Embargo

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to recent reports that the lifting of the European Union embargo on arms sales to China would lead to a retaliatory decision by the United States Administration to restrict technology sales to European companies.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I refer the House to the evidence that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary gave to the Committee on Strategic Export Controls in another place on 12 January. The United States has a legitimate and understandable interest both in the effectiveness of the EU's system of arms control and in the stability of the East Asian region. Whatever the final decision from the EU review, we need to do our best to reassure the United States on the effectiveness of the EU code of conduct, which will remain the key to controlling EU arms exports to China.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, in particular for its understanding of the need to satisfy the United States, which feels very strongly about these issues, that any change in the arms embargo policy needs to be maintained. Does he agree that it is critical to the stability of the region that the status quo is maintained on both sides of the Taiwan Strait and that there should be no loose talk of independence on the part of Taiwan? Does he also agree that, equally, no inflammatory legislation should be introduced by China which seeks to justify an invasion?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I can assure the House that the Government recognise the importance of stability on both sides of the Taiwan Strait and of regional stability in general. The code of conduct is, and will remain, the primary means of controlling arms sales in that and other regions. In December 2004, the European Council's conclusions underlined the importance of the code's criteria on regional stability and the security of allied and friendly countries. It may be helpful to draw one element of the code to the attention of the House—that is, weapons should not be exported if they would be used,
	"aggressively against another country or to assert by force a territorial claim".
	Finally in response to my noble friend, we have not yet seen—I do not believe that anyone has yet seen, other than in newspaper reports—the text of the anti-cessation legislation that the Chinese Government propose to introduce, as I understand it, next week. But it is certainly true that we welcome the more conciliatory developments between China and Taiwan and believe that anything that disturbed those would be to our disadvantage.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, how do the Government reconcile lifting this embargo with Britain's national interests, knowing that British defence companies must be worried by the US Congress's threat to cut off vital technology transfers to British companies?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the resistance of the United States Government and many US companies to exchanging information is a long-standing issue. It goes back a considerable way—before these recent changes in the possibility of trading with China. Some people on both sides of Congress have observed that such resistance may be more to do with the protection of United States industries over that period than with other matters. We are fully seized of the concerns expressed in the United States, but we believe that the proposed arrangements will be an effective means of controlling both the quality and quantity of exports to the PRC. Close defence co-operation between the United Kingdom and the United States is plainly beneficial and vital to both countries, and I am sure that we would do nothing to undermine that in the long term.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that it does not require the excuse of lifting an arms embargo to China for Congressman Hunter and others to be entirely opposed to allowing access to American technologies? Can he also confirm that the level of American and Israeli exports of arms to China over the past two to three years has been much higher than that from all the European states put together and that certainly Israeli exports to China have included some very sensitive technologies without, so far as I am aware, the US Administration objecting?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, as I think I indicated in my previous answer, I confirm that these matters may not be entirely due to changes in arrangements in Europe. Incidentally, I should add that recent legislative change in the United States has also speeded up the system of export licensing and authorisations, and so our dealings with the United States of America have not been all adverse, one-way traffic. I do not have here at the Dispatch Box figures on Israeli exports to China. However, from what I have read second-hand, I believe that both Israel and the United States exceed us in the volume of such exports.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a very dangerous situation in the Taiwan Strait at present, which was not helped by the joint declaration by the United States and Japan recently? This is yet another example of the same problem. I declare an interest. I have seen the wording of the law which is arriving next week, and that at least should provide an opportunity, whether it will work or not, to get some stability in this area.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the Government believe it is absolutely vital to get stability on either side of the strait. Our view is that the Taiwan question should be settled peacefully through negotiation between the peoples on both sides of the strait. We are actively encouraging both sides to take that course of action rather than any other, and certainly rather than anything that would inflame the situation. It is the case that a large number of people from Taiwan—more than 1 million, I believe—live in China, and I think that a high proportion of inward investment into Taiwan is by China. Everyone there has every interest in a normal, peaceful and stable relationship. We will encourage that.

Road Safety Bill

Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Zimbabwe

Baroness Park of Monmouth: rose to call attention to the situation in Zimbabwe; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, only four years ago, Zimbabwe was one of the most successful countries with the most sophisticated professional class in Africa. Adult literacy was 90 per cent and youth literacy 98 per cent. It also had large numbers of professional people, black and white—doctors, academics, teachers and lawyers. It was a net exporter of food—the breadbasket of southern Africa. Today, it imports grain from Zambia, grown by former Zimbabwean farmers. Its tobacco and beef once brought in 40 per cent of foreign currency. Now there has been a 90 per cent decline in, for example, the production of corn. GDP is down by 40 per cent per capita. Inflation is at over 300 per cent and still rising. Banks are failing and corruption is rampant in the leadership. According to the IMF, the economy has shrunk by 30 per cent in the five years to 2004. There is more than 70 per cent unemployment, and the UNDP estimates that 41 per cent of the 11 million population will starve unless food aid comes to fill the gap in the harvest.
	Zimbabwe once exported 20 per cent of the world's tobacco. Now, that figure is 4 per cent and falling. Almost all the 4,000 commercial farms which produced this revenue and invested in production provided schools, clinics, housing and land for their workers and sometimes homes for HIV-stricken children. These farms have been seized without compensation and in the most brutal fashion. The 310,000 farm workers were driven off the land and are disenfranchised, displaced, homeless and starving. The NGOs trying to help them were driven off.
	So, we have a once-prosperous country whose economy has been destroyed by its own government and whose highly skilled professional and commercial classes, white and black, have largely been driven abroad. The most vulnerable people—the rural African population—have been dumped on former commercial farms, without seed, tools or land title, to attempt subsistence farming before being, in many cases, driven back to the reserves to allow the new "thievocracy" to move in as landed gentry. Forty per cent of these farms were, incidentally, bought from the present government after 1980—many as scrubland, which the government did not want in any case. Amazingly, most of the people of Zimbabwe, white and black, have patience, dignity, good humour and mutual respect, without which they could not have survived.
	I have described only the economic situation. Far worse is the remorseless destruction of the rule of law and of basic human rights practised by the ZANU-PF Government. Every one of the 57 opposition MPs has, at one time or another, been beaten, threatened and terrorised, and no action has been taken against the aggressors—Mugabe's war veterans and youth militia. They rape, pillage and murder while the police stand by, and they have just been given a major pay award, to encourage them to intimidate and disrupt any political opposition in the elections. There is nothing to choose between them and the Janjaweed.
	What of Zimbabwe and the outside world? The situation there is as much a human disaster as Darfur. Children are being routinely raped and starved in both countries. The disaster is as great as in the tsunami countries, but the world has done nothing. The government's flagrant disregard of the human rights there is as bad as the Serb treatment of Kosovo or the events in the Great Lakes. The differences are, first, that there are no journalists left in Zimbabwe to tell the world what is going on, whether on TV, radio or the press, and no media coverage other than that of the government. Next, because the African Union countries, and in particular Thabo Mbeki, have hitherto been more concerned with supporting and defending Mugabe, the liberation leader, than with admitting what he is doing to his own people, the AU has prevented any discussion of Zimbabwe in the UN.
	What of the UN? It has applied no sanctions. Mugabe was able to ensure, through the solid bloc vote of the African Union, that Zimbabwe was not even discussed at several meetings of the UN Commission for Human Rights—and of course he goes regularly to New York. Thanks to the AU, neither the Security Council nor the General Assembly ever discuss Zimbabwe, yet UNCHR is represented, though wholly inactive, in Zimbabwe. Until recently, the UN World Food Programme was feeding Mugabe's starving people, and will no doubt be required to do so again when Mugabe so wishes. The IMF and the World Bank will no longer lend to an economy in freefall.
	The SADC countries, which best know from the refugees flooding into their countries how dire the situation is, are intimidated into silence so that Mr Mbeki's "quiet diplomacy" can be left to bring about change. Incidentally, Mozambique, Zambia and Nigeria have enthusiastically encouraged Zimbabwe farmers to come to their countries. They recognise them as valuable Africans, committed to Africa, wherever the rule of law exists.
	What is to be done to help? The country still has well qualified, able people, who only ask for the restoration of the rule of law, free elections, a just settlement, and the chance to make the country work again: provided they are fairly treated. Those who have left will return, and it is vital that we should enable the diaspora to retain their skills. Those who have bravely stayed, black and white, would rebuild the economy, provided they receive compensation for the seizure of land—seizures widely regarded by the country's own courts as illegal—and investment from the IMF and World Bank to enable the economy to recover. There is still a remarkable potential in terms of skill and committed people, though our own treatment of asylum seekers is deskilling people every day. We shall have much to answer for if we continue both to return asylum seekers against their will, despite the repeated warnings of the UNHCR in this country, to violence and sometimes torture, and to prevent skilled doctors, teachers—I hope Mr Trevor Phillips is listening—and others with professional skills from working.
	Her Majesty's Government have so far allowed themselves to be routed and manipulated by Mugabe and Mbeki: both forbidding them to do anything, on the grounds that they are a former colonial power. In the long years when we fought against UDI, however, and in the settlement over land at Lancaster House, we recognised our duty to do what we could to help Zimbabwe to achieve the same independence as Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda, and the other African countries where there was once a British presence. I have not noticed the Prime Minister having any quarrel about benevolent intervention in Darfur and in southern Sudan; yet we held the mandate there. Clare Short, in a fateful and ill judged letter, wrote to Mugabe that there would be no more money for land, since the incoming Labour Government were,
	"without links to former colonial interests".
	We can and should operate with and through the UN and the EU, and still more with the IMF and the World Bank.
	The Government have been persuaded by Mr Mbeki, by SADC and by the AU that any British intervention would be counterproductive, even though our concern is for Zimbabwe. So what are HMG doing through international organisations? The UN is represented in Zimbabwe by the UNHCR. It has said nothing in the UN about the widespread violence, rape and torture. The UNDP is there, and in 2004 was said to have been negotiating for seven months, with a view to supporting and financing the general election process—voter education, electoral rolls, et cetera—and the UNDP representative said, "We want to contribute to the full, credible process. The elections should meet international standards". Nothing has happened; there are no UN observers, and 25 per cent of the electorate who fled overseas are denied the right to vote.
	The UN World Food Programme was to provide food and to monitor the distribution. Have HMG asked why the UN does not even discuss Zimbabwe, let alone act to protect the weak, as it is doing in Darfur and the Congo? Yet the UN is represented by a number of bodies there who could call for action. UNICEF has a representative in Harare and says that children as young as nine are caring for brothers, sisters and dying parents in child-headed households. Orphans are dropping out of school and turning to prostitution. UNAID estimates that there are 1.1 million AIDS orphans and predicts that, by 2015, more than 40 per cent of workers will have died of AIDS. The World Bank says that the number of children in primary schools has shrunk in four years by 21 per cent, and that 19 per cent of male teachers and 29 per cent of women teachers are HIV-positive. The AIDS epidemic is further spread by the routine rape of teenage girls in the militia camps.
	I ask the Government why we, as members of the UN, are active over the tsunami and in Darfur, yet condone a loud silence about the wickedness in Zimbabwe, where the UN is actually present. I find it difficult to understand, with so many UN agencies on the ground and presumably reporting, why the UN Secretary-General has said and done nothing to bring the situation in Zimbabwe before the UN and the world. The ICRC—the International Red Cross—is not much better. It had a regional meeting in Harare last October to prepare people for UN or AU peace missions. What has it done in and for Zimbabwe? I should very much like to know whether it has been visiting Mr Roy Bennett.
	Until now, the African Union has persistently opposed any British initiative on the grounds of our colonial past. They find no difficulty, however, in accepting generous help for their African army from the EU, where we are coupled with those admirable colonialists: the Portuguese, the Spaniards, the Belgians, and the Germans—who are still remembered with hatred by the Hereros in Namibia.
	However, the African Union Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights did carry out its own fact-finding mission in Zimbabwe in June 2002, and produced a report which was deeply critical of the repressive legislation, including POSA, the lack of oversight of the police, the attacks on the independence of the judiciary and on the freedom of the press, and they observed the party militia engaged in political violence. Their commission received evidence of arbitrary arrests and torture. Zimbabwe disregarded this report for nearly three years. This year it has been required by the AU to reply—largely because the report was leaked—and it has denounced the report.
	SADC too has found its efforts to ensure a free and fair election and to send in observers rebuffed. Mr Mugabe evidently believes that he can treat his fellow African leaders with contempt and still be protected by his mystical status—and it is a mystical status—as the great liberator. I hope and believe that the time is coming when Africa, with the rest of the world, will see him clearly as the architect, with a few greedy jackals to share the spoils, of the near-destruction of a country.
	I have seen corruption in the Congo and the collapse of a rich country, where there was no indigenous infrastructure left by the Belgians. In Zimbabwe, an even more corrupt and ruthless government have wantonly destroyed their own flourishing society; starved, beaten and killed large numbers of their own black people; ignored human rights—what are we to make of a regime which outlaws all charitable aid from outside for its starving and sick people?—and have ended up as a black hole in Africa, with no one but themselves to blame.
	Fortunately, the AU's belated recognition of the truth about ZANU-PF has coincided with a new, extremely important and potentially valuable African development. COSATU, the trades unions in South Africa, has begun to be concerned about the treatment of workers in Zimbabwe and has twice tried to visit that country to talk to the Zimbabwe trades unions. The regime, as stupid as it is vicious, made the mistake of expelling it twice with contumely. That has dented the image of Mugabe in South Africa and, for the first time, Mr Mbeki's determined support for him is being questioned.
	If COSATU and its brother unions in Africa and, indeed, in this country and the Commonwealth, were to encourage their governments to support the people of Zimbabwe, rather than the odious regime, that could materially change the situation for reasons that are not political but professional, pragmatic and fraternal. Other important African voices have been speaking for the people of Zimbabwe, not least those brave and respected Archbishops, Pius Ncube of Bulawayo and Desmond Tutu.
	Now is the moment, when the G8 meets to discuss NePAD and the work of the Commission for Africa—I shall watch with interest to see whether the commission has at any stage addressed the problem of Zimbabwe—to make absolutely clear to the African countries that the time has come for them to use their power to restore good governance in Zimbabwe. They must be seen to do so, and through COSATU and SADC they have important levers. Unless they abandon the failed quiet diplomacy and recognise in the UN and in every other world forum the need for action, the G8 should declare a moratorium on all forms of aid and support under NePAD. The African countries cannot simultaneously reject our concern as colonialism on the grounds that Zimbabwe is an African issue and yet do nothing to end the incompetent and disastrous tyranny that is responsible.
	Africans, like us, respect those who respect themselves. Allowing a once successful country to stay failed does not even make common sense. The IMF and World Bank should use their influence to make clear that action in Zimbabwe is a sine qua non for any future aid anywhere in Africa. The Africans must recognise that the white people of Zimbabwe are also committed to their country and are valuable to it.
	Time is running out for Zimbabwe. It is disgraceful that while Mozambique and Iraq have provided overseas voting, the 25 per cent of the Zimbabwe electorate who fled abroad are denied it. A petition for free and fair elections has been organised in this country but, alas, it will have no effect. If we fail to act in every possible forum—the UN, the EU, the African Union, the G8 and even the Commonwealth—to enable Zimbabwe to restore itself, it will be a disgrace and no amount of debt-forgiving and politicians posing with happy black children will remove our guilt. We ignored ethnic cleansing in Matabeleland in the 1980s out of political correctness and appeasement and a fear of interfering. We must not see the death of a nation and be too lily-livered to act. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I say immediately that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, for once again allowing us to debate the situation in Zimbabwe and for putting her views so clearly and succinctly. I agreed with much of what she said and, as I develop my argument, she will find that I am certainly no defender of the Mugabe regime.
	I hope that I misunderstood the noble Baroness when she appeared to suggest that the scale of the disaster in Zimbabwe was as bad as those in Darfur and the tsunami countries. That is not the case. We overstretch the case if we over-egg the pudding by making the situation seem much worse than it is. We play into the hands of those who say that the situation in Zimbabwe has been misrepresented and that we should ignore what is stated in the press.
	This April marks 25 years of Zimbabwean independence. It was the last of our colonies to obtain independence. Much has happened in the succeeding 25 years. We then looked forward with great anticipation to the freedom of the whole region of southern Africa. We have seen great progress in southern Africa. We have seen 10 years of a democratic South Africa with parliamentary institutions and respect for human rights deeply and solidly entrenched. We should celebrate that.
	We cannot say the same about what has happened in Zimbabwe. The situation has deteriorated year by year, month by month and even day by day. Of course, President Mugabe blames that on the result of continuing colonialism. I do not dispute for one moment that to throw off the shackles of colonialism is not an easy matter. It cannot be done overnight.
	Having said that, and recognising that there have been severe drought conditions in Zimbabwe, which have affected agricultural output, there can be no doubt that the situation has been exacerbated by—and much of it is directly the responsibility of—the ZANU-PF Government. As the noble Baroness said, it is without doubt the author of Zimbabwe's misfortunes. I doubt that the land expropriation process was thought through. The sad thing is that money was available for many years for farmers in Zimbabwe to be trained, educated and helped in commercial agriculture. That money was available from the British Government as a result of the Lancaster House agreement. Nothing was done, which is extremely sad. As has been said, what was one of the finest agricultural countries in Africa has been destroyed.
	Repression continues apace. The election process has been manipulated and thwarted by the police and the ZANU-PF militia. The Movement for Democratic Change has provided us with a checklist of how the South African Development Community protocol of principles and guidelines governing democratic elections has been carried out. It makes extremely depressing reading and shows that there has been no compliance whatever by Zimbabwe with those protocols.
	Zimbabwe's neighbours are finding it increasingly difficult to cope with the influx of refugees and some are facing severe problems and dislocation of their economies. It is hard to resolve the problem of refugees and not easy to deal with asylum seekers fairly. Although of course not on the same scale, there is no doubt that we in this country have problems with asylum seekers from Zimbabwe. My noble friend will know that there is a great deal of concern among Zimbabweans living in this country and among the friends of Zimbabwe about the returning of Zimbabwe asylum seekers, especially as President Mugabe has said menacingly that he believes that failed asylum seekers being returned are being sent back as agents provocateurs for colonialism.
	Is there any mechanism by which we can monitor what is happening when refugees go back? Can we revisit that issue seriously? Notwithstanding the headlines in today's newspapers about the fact that few asylum seekers go back, can my noble friend give us some figures to show what is happening?
	The dictatorship in Zimbabwe is holding an election. If I may be allowed a slight aside, some of the statements of propaganda by the Zimbabwe regime would be comical if they were not so serious. Twenty-five years after independence, the people of Zimbabwe are being told that this is an anti-Blair election. Where have I heard that before? Perhaps Mugabe's argument is that what is good enough for the UK is good enough for him. But seriously, it is really quite pathetic that that election is being fought on that level, not on what ZANU-PF can offer for the future.
	He has played the anti-colonialist card crudely but, apparently, with some skill. There is no doubt that if you speak to people from the region, there is a lot of sympathy for Mugabe and what he stands for. That is undoubtedly so and we must recognise it. But even his strongest supporters must begin to wonder how serious he is as a politician when, for example, he attacks Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who has stood all his life against oppression in South Africa and continues to stand against oppression. Archbishop Tutu is being condemned because, President Mugabe says, he prayed for the apartheid regime. Of course, he did pray for the apartheid regime: he prayed for its repentance and for the mending of its ways.
	US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, is dismissed in the most patronising and chauvinistic of ways because she is a woman and because her ancestors were slaves, so apparently she should know better than to allow those who follow on from the white masters of slavery to tell her what she should to. That is not a way in which to behave toward anyone.
	Anyone who disagrees with Mugabe is castigated. As the noble Baroness said, a delegation from the Confederation of South African Trade Unions was expelled from the country—or not even allowed to get there. Newspapers are closed down and the state will not allow the opposition party a fair share of television broadcasting time to put its case. There seems to be no end to President Mugabe's paranoia.
	However, we should not demonise President Mugabe. What bothers me perhaps more than anything is that while he is to blame, he is not the only one to blame. There are many people in ZANU-PF who should and do know better. They are the ones who should stand up and say what is wrong. Unless they are prepared to stand up and argue that the problems are not being sponsored from outside but are the fault of the country inside, they make life extremely difficult. If Zimbabwe is to have a decent future they will have to be courageous and stand up for democracy.
	Many of the ZANU-PF people fought and died for freedom. They should now be prepared to stand up for those principles. The most difficult question we have to answer—to which the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, posed some solutions—is what can we do to assist change? One thing is certain: we cannot compel or enforce change. When I have raised the issue with many members of the South African Government, they say to me, "What do you want us to do: invade the country?". I sometimes wonder whether that is what the Opposition are saying to us: do they want us to invade the country? Those days are past.
	Therefore I am not suggesting in any way that there are any simple solutions. It is my firm view that those of us from outside have to try to resolve the problems. I believed that in the days of the apartheid regime; and that sanctions were right. The ANC believed that sanctions were right. Now if one raises the issue of sanctions with the South African Government they say that it would hurt the people we are trying to help. The situation is a mirror image of what happened in the apartheid days.
	I believe that it is right for us to continue to engage in dialogue with President Mugabe and Thabo Mbeki and the South African Government, because they hold the key to what happens in Zimbabwe. There is no magic solution—I certainly do not have one—to bring the situation to an end. There are some who argue—it is a persuasive argument in some ways—that if South Africa would only stop the supply of electricity to Zimbabwe the Government there would crumble and disappear in a few days. I wish that it were that simple. There is no magic bullet.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, says, we have to continue to engage in every possible institution in which we can engage and push for change. That is the only way to go ahead. I have no road map for the future. All I can say is that we are right to stand up and make the case. Although there have apparently been one or two leaks, I do not know what the Africa Commission report, due to be launched this Friday, will say. I hope that it says something. There has been a silence, not only in this country—we have been less silent than most—but in southern Africa, for reasons that I cannot fathom, because everyone knows how bad the situation is.
	Whatever happens, we must all speak out. Although occasionally the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and I have differences of emphasis there is a consensus in this country that the situation has to be changed and we must play a part. We want to see a future of peace and democracy and economic stability and change for Zimbabwe. That is something for which I fought for many years and I hope that I can live to see the day when it will happen.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, I want to congratulate my noble friend Lady Park on having secured the debate and on a brilliant and extremely well informed speech. It was an excellent opening to our debate.
	In October 2001 in Blackpool the Prime Minister made an important speech in the context of the formation of NePAD. He called for a partnership between Africa and the developed world. He said about the African position:
	"it's a deal: on the African side: true democracy, no more excuses for dictatorship, abuses of human rights; no tolerance of bad governance, from the endemic corruption of some states to the activities of Mr Mugabe's henchmen in Zimbabwe".
	There have been some positive developments in relations between the developed countries and some African countries, but Zimbabwe has grown much worse since that time, as the two previous speakers pointed out. There are no human rights and no rule of law; there is the rule of a dictator. Economically, industrially and politically, Zimbabwe is a ruin.
	The situation in Zimbabwe has been adequately described in this debate and in past debates. I want to talk about the effects of the situation there on neighbouring countries. The first point of which we should be conscious is the spread of AIDS. That has been encouraged by the effect of the poverty and unemployment in Zimbabwe, which has caused one member of each family in many cases to go abroad to earn the money with which food can be bought for his family to eat. That has led to a substantial increase in AIDS in southern Africa. Dr Roger Bate, who is the director of Africa Fighting Malaria, said last month:
	"Business as usual is no longer an option; if political stability is not returned to Zimbabwe soon and the refugee population doesn't go home, then all AIDS efforts in the region may become worthless".
	The consequences of that diaspora are not limited to AIDS. Botswana is suffering seriously from the influx of Zimbabwean refugees. A member of the Botswana Parliament said recently that the police and defence forces of that country carry out a ping-pong exercise: on day one they push back over the border to Zimbabwe the refugees who have arrived in great numbers; and on day two the refugees come back over the border.
	The plans for economic progress in SADC have been suffering. The proposals for southern African monetary union are stalled because of the economic effects of Zimbabwe. That is particularly hard on the smaller SADC countries. The economic board of the IMF is considering within the next five months whether Zimbabwe will be compelled to withdraw from the IMF.
	One African leader could resolve the problem in a short time: President Mbeki of South Africa, one of Africa's most important leaders. Sadly it seems that he has not been giving much of a lead. Even though he played a leading role in the conclusion of the three important African treaties calling for good governance, human rights and the rule of law, he has not followed through.
	Over the years he seems to have changed his attitude. Before the Zimbabwe elections of 2000 he called for as many observers as possible as soon as possible to go to Zimbabwe to ensure the fairness of the election. That sort of tone has not been followed up recently. He played a key role when the Abuja agreement was achieved in 2001. If carried through it could have had an important effect on solving the problems of Africa, but it was repudiated by Mr Mugabe.
	More recently the maxim of President Mbeki has been "quiet diplomacy", which he has claimed would lead to talks to resolve the dispute between Mugabe and the MDC. It is not clear to me how much quiet diplomacy there has been. There have been rumours and reports that talks are happening: they have been denied by the MDC. There have been rumours that talks are about to happen but they have not had any real place. This talk about quiet diplomacy seems to have enabled the impasse about Zimbabwe to be dragged on, so that none of the issues that would be involved in a free and fair election would be addressed.
	President Mbeki's attitude to the Zimbabwe problem is very different from his actions in other parts of Africa where he has been extremely active. He made 22 trips in other parts of the continent last year. He has foiled coups, he has ousted bad rulers and he has hosted talks between other leaders. He has sent South African troops to many countries as peacekeepers. He is regarded as Africa's leading statesman, ready to exert himself to resolve the difficult problems of Africa in any part of that continent. But he has not done it in Zimbabwe.
	After the latest Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, people close to the events told me that President Mbeki had lobbied the African members to call for Zimbabwe to be readmitted fully to the Commonwealth. Fortunately, that move was rejected.
	Mr Mbeki has said that Africa's future will depend on what Africans do and not what they say. The western world has already become sceptical, I believe, about the ability and the will of African countries to carry through their obligations under the treaties to which I have referred. When they made those treaties, they had the best of intentions, but they have not followed up those words. That situation could have serious consequences certainly for the southern part of Africa, but, I believe, for Africa as a whole.
	Now, it seems to me, Her Majesty's Government have an unparalleled opportunity to make up for their failure in the first two years after the Mugabe terror began. They failed to take any action in those two years, except to express various degrees of concern. HMG can now help to move forward the resolution of the problem of Zimbabwe.
	In a few months' time, we will have the presidency of the European Union. We have already, this year, the chair of the G8 countries. The Prime Minister has set up the Commission for Africa which will produce its report in a few days' time. We are still a leading member of the Commonwealth. If the Prime Minister does not follow up his fine words at Blackpool in the present conjuncture by doing something about Zimbabwe, people may say—to paraphrase the words of Gordon Brown—that there is nothing he could ever say which we could ever believe.

Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, the persistence of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, in seeking this short debate today is greatly appreciated. It gives some of us an opportunity to raise issues of grave concern about continuing developments in Zimbabwe. Although I freely admit that we in this House follow developments in that country, there are few of us as well informed as is the noble Baroness about the horrendously repulsive regime under which far too many of its people have to exist. We heard about that today in the speech made by the noble Baroness, which I shall be pleased to read tomorrow, and which we now have on the record of this House.
	I wish to raise the case of Mr Roy Bennett, Member of Parliament, and the situation in which he finds himself in his own country. In a debate in the Zimbabwe Parliament in May last year, Mr Bennett, a Member of Parliament belonging to the Movement for Democratic Change, pushed the Minister of Justice, Mr Chinamasa, to the ground. In turn, Mr Bennett was kicked by ZANU-PF MP, Mr Mutasa. No one was hurt in the scuffle.
	Mr Bennett had been the target of consistent harassment and abuse over a long period. I can well understand that he was at the end of his tether as a result of the abuse levied by the Minister of Justice at that time. For all that, I do not condone the action of Mr Bennett, but neither do I condone the procedure that followed.
	In spite of Mr Bennett apologising to the Speaker and to the Minister of Justice—which he did on two occasions in Parliament—a privileges committee was established that comprised a majority of ZANU-PF members, with a government supporter in the chair.
	The privileges committee, rather than carrying out the established function to preserve and serve the purpose of contempt of parliamentary proceedings, thereby maintaining the dignity and decorum of Parliament, sentenced Mr Bennett to 15 months hard labour, of which three months were to be suspended. The Zimbabwe Parliament endorsed the Committee's decision along strict, party-political lines.
	In my view, the members of the Zimbabwe Parliament set aside their role as parliamentarians. They acted as a court of law and imposed a sentence that is unprecedented in international parliamentary practice. I believe that it is fundamentally flawed. Mr Bennett was given no right of appeal or recourse to a court of law. Had he been able to take legal action, I have no doubt that a typical sentence for common assault would have been a fine.
	Mr Bennett's location in prison was kept from his family and legal representatives who searched the prisons throughout the area. When he was finally located,
	"he was found to have been stripped, and clothed in a soiled prison garment that exposed his genitalia and buttocks".
	Those are not my words. I quote from the report of the Bar Council and the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales. That is surely a flagrant and degrading maltreatment of a prisoner. It is incumbent on the Zimbabwe Government to condemn the prison authorities and to bring an immediate end to maltreatment of prisoners, whoever they may be.
	A few weeks ago I raised this matter with the British branch of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I found its former chairman, Mr John Austin MP, and its current chairman, Miss Ann Clwyd MP, willingly and actively pursuing the issue with the Zimbabwe authorities through the IPU Committee on Human Rights in Geneva. I welcome the action that they have taken and are taking.
	Perhaps it is a result of those representations that although the Speaker of Zimbabwe initially barred consideration of Parliament's verdict and sentence by a court of law, a first hearing took place last October when all parties concerned accepted the matter was urgent. But that was nearly six months ago and the judge has still not rendered his ruling.
	The refusal to rule on appeals and release on bail not only currently prevents Mr Bennett exercising his parliamentary mandate and deprives his constituents of representation in the Zimbabwe Parliament, but also prevents him standing as a candidate in this month's elections in that country. However, since I entered this Chamber about one hour ago, I have received the news that Mr Bennett is not being allowed to stand in the Zimbabwe elections this month. But the chink of light is that his courageous wife, Heather, has taken on the flag of honour. She has accepted the challenge. God give her health and strength to carry it out. I wish her well in all that she is doing.
	I reiterate that physical violence can play no part in the democratic process. I believe that Mr Bennett's sentence is disproportionate to his offence, and I know that it has not been tested by the normal judicial process. I know, too, that his treatment in prison gives rise to the gravest concern.
	I give all credit to the Inter-Parliamentary Union for taking action in support of the rule of law and against the violation of human rights in this case, as it does in others. What representations have the Government made to Zimbabwe to insist on the compliance of decent standards of justice and fairness? I wonder whether the High Commissioner has been invited to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to discuss those issues. Have representations been made through our law officers, or through a third party such as the South African Government or the International Red Cross? Surely all those avenues are open to us.
	I invite the Minister to give an indication of what the Government have done, or what they intend doing. I look forward to her response.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful that my noble friend Lady Park won this balloted debate. She is without doubt a true friend of Zimbabwe. This is not the first debate that she has initiated, and I hope that it will not be the last. Somebody has to keep Zimbabwe on the agenda when the Government do not.
	In the past few years, our debates have shown how the political, economic and social situation in Zimbabwe has continued to deteriorate rapidly. Those conditions are being exacerbated by poor rainfall this year, and the outlook for the country remains very bleak indeed.
	However, there is some good news. The Mugabe-led regime has become even more isolated in recent months. Former allies in the form of Namibia, Malaysia and Libya have all distanced themselves recently following political changes in their own countries. China alone remains committed to support the regime and is doing so right now with some foreign assistance, such as military equipment, much of it being delivered to,
	"help the military deal with any crisis following the elections in March",
	as the Herald newspaper so delicately put it on 22 February.
	In the past six months, the AU has criticised the Zimbabwean Government for the first time. The SADC leaders have adopted standards with which elections in the region should comply, and South Africa has started, in a small way, to open up the debate on Zimbabwe. COSATU and the SACP—both important components of the ANC—have been very open in their criticism.
	Despite this, the Mugabe government have not moved significantly to open up space for democratic activity. Some minor modifications have been made to the way in which the 31 March parliamentary elections will be held, such as, voting on one day the use of visible ink on fingers to identify persons who have voted, and no mobile voting stations. But apart from those changes, none of the major underlying principles for a free and fair election have been met.
	There is still no freedom of speech or association. The media is still tightly controlled and the independent press banned or cowed. Recently, the remainder of the international press corps in Harare has been forced to flee the country despite being Zimbabwean citizens. The whole electoral process is tightly controlled and managed by security agencies, the military and the police.
	The voters' roll is incomplete and contains massive distortions. At least half the population will be denied the vote by being excluded by administrative dictum, local unconstitutional regulations relating to voting rights or physical absence from the country, and a ban on postal or foreign balloting.
	There is widespread political violence and intimidation. The police and the courts are being used to intimidate the opposition, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, reminded us. There are 400 prosecutions of MDC activists taking place at present.
	Funding from foreign sources is banned and local sources are intimidated by the security agencies and state threats. Food is very scarce. It is tightly controlled by the state and used as a political weapon against the opposition. MDC members are denied food from state-controlled agencies which have a state monopoly—the grain marketing board, for example. ZANU is threatening that communities which vote MDC—we know that they are the threat—will not receive food or assistance. The Minister of Home Affairs, Mr Mohadi, has said in speeches in his constituency, "Are you hungry? Vote ZANU and be fed".
	Simple activities such as distribution of leaflets and putting up posters are made illegal. Regulations make it an offence to put a poster on a fence or pole without the approval in writing of the owner.
	Last week President Mbeki of South Africa, who is unquestionably pro-ZANU-PF, said that he expected the Zimbabwean elections to be in accordance with SADC protocols and declared "free and fair". What does the Minister understand that to mean? Is it a cover for his inability to promote justice and his continued support for a corrupt, dictatorial regime?
	Today SADC has stated that its observers will have "real power" in the electoral process. I, see, too, that Mugabe has barred the parliamentary forum of that association from monitoring the election. Does that mean that there will be a process whereby electoral rigging will be stopped? Without a proper, independently verified process, the elections will not be free and fair and must be universally condemned.
	Despite claims that the economy has stopped declining—after a record six years of continuous annual decline in GDP with the economic output falling from US$8.4 billion in 1997 to US$4.8 billion last year—the economy will shrink again this year. The main reasons for that are continued falls in agricultural output owing to drought and very poor plantings with very little support in the way of inputs. Mining has been stopped in its tracks by new threats, and changes to the fiscal and foreign exchange regime and industry and tourism continue to shrink.
	While the reserve bank projects 3 to 5 per cent growth, and the Minister of Finance projects 5 per cent growth, private sector economists are projecting at least 3 per cent decline in economic output in 2005.
	The effect on the society of seven years of decline in the economy has been catastrophic. Life expectancy has fallen to 33 years from 59 in 1990. Incomes have been halved. Half the adult population has fled the country as economic refugees, many of them taking their AIDS infection with them to other countries. AIDS, sadly, has become Zimbabwe's major export. Of course, there are the other consequences that my noble friend Lord Blaker mentioned.
	The number of jobs has fallen by more than 40 per cent. Death rates have risen exponentially, and now stand at three times the historical average. The national population is declining at the rate of up to 5 per cent per annum. At least half the population needs food subsidies to maintain their families. The UN estimates that 5.8 million Zimbabweans out of an estimated population of 11 million need assistance to get through the coming winter.
	In the 2003-04 season, Mugabe claimed Zimbabwe produced 2.8 million tonnes of grain—some 800,000 tonnes more than was needed for domestic consumption. It is now known that total cereal production did not reach 1 million tonnes. Despite Mugabe's claims, the GMB has been importing steadily throughout the past year and imports are now reaching close to estimated daily consumption needs.
	Even by its own admission, crop plantings in 2004-05 season have been very poor. Some state estimates put them as low as 20 per cent of target. Whatever the areas planted, the present position is that half the country in the south and east has had a very poor, wet season and now faces a long dry spell with limited surface water and virtually no food or grazing for livestock.
	In the rest of the country, conditions are only marginally better. Plantings are small and the potential yields are well below historical averages. As a consequence, it is now expected that cereal production—all grains except wheat—will fall to well below last year's crop, which was already below the 50 per cent threshold.
	Mugabe has banned most NGOs from operating in the field to give the ruling party a free hand in the rural areas, and has severely restricted the activities of the UN and the WFP. For this reason, the whole infrastructure built up over several years by the donor community—led by the USA and the UK—has been dismantled and is now in no position to help in any new crisis. Even the feeding schemes in primary schools by some NGOs have been closed down, leaving hundreds of thousands of vulnerable children to their fate and the weather.
	Tobacco production is predicted to fall to 50,000 tonnes from 250,000 tonnes at its peak; milk production and oilseed production are down by half; horticulture is also down after holding its own for some years because of its semi-industrial character. Farm invasions and arbitrary confiscation of private assets is continuing. Food prices have risen across the board and are now among the highest in the region.
	High sustained levels of inflation with controlled interest rates have destroyed savings. The average pensioner is now a pauper and totally dependent on the generosity of others and children overseas. I know someone who has saved all his life and whose policies mature next month. The total combined paid-up value will be $12, that is all now. This shows what a criminal regime can do to the savings of a nation in a very short space of time.
	In Zimbabwe, there are an estimated 2.3 million HIV-infected adults—up from 2 million, which was the latest figure in our debate on 28 January 2004—only 5,000 of whom receive any form of treatment. AIDS deaths are running at 3,000 a week. The impact of this on the social and economic situation is difficult to compute. There have been epidemics of tuberculosis, malaria and pneumonia, in a situation where the hospitals are without doctors, nurses or drugs. Even food and cleaning materials are in short supply.
	In the school sector, the cost of schooling has risen dramatically as state funding has declined and the services of the Ministry of Education have deteriorated. More than half of all girls of school-going age are not in school, and the standard of education in functioning schools has declined. Pass rates as low as 3 per cent in some schools are now recorded. Illiteracy rates are rising after reaching an all-time low of 5 per cent in the heydays after independence in 1985.
	The average Zimbabwean faces a nightmare situation. There are 1 million orphans, no jobs, declining buying power of salaries and shortages of just about everything. Going to a hospital is a death sentence unless one can afford expensive private facilities.
	As we all know, this situation can be ascribed to one man and a few cronies—that man being Robert Mugabe. But we need to look at history. In 1976, a similar situation was occurring in Rhodesia. There was a log jam; there was one person blocking the road forward. That person moved because South Africa moved.
	There must be much more pressure on Mr Mbeki. Sadly, Mr Mbeki has not fulfilled any of our expectations. His quiet diplomacy has failed. He is a broken reed who has caused quite deliberate economic decline and problems for the whole of southern Africa. As my noble friend Lady Park said, we need to do more in the international forums, in the UN and in the IMF.
	The people of Zimbabwe now want a policy of "one man, one vote" in a free and fair election. We gave them that in 1980. We must help to give them that again now and then support whatever government come to power.

Baroness D'Souza: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Park, on securing the debate.
	The important points about current conditions in Zimbabwe in the run-up to the elections have already been made very forcefully, particularly by the previous speaker, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I would only add that a strong and co-ordinated statement from the South African Development Corporation, the EU and the US on pre-election abuses and conditions in Zimbabwe at the moment, and the IMF/World Bank consequences, would be timely and is certainly called for. Furthermore, even at this very late stage, international organisations could most usefully provide equipment such as videocams, cell phones, radios and transport, and broadcasts of independent election information, in the vernacular, in Shona and Ndbele, with the aim of being able to refute any post-election statements about the freedom and fairness of the forthcoming election.
	I should like to speak briefly on what Zimbabwe might look like after the election and what avenues might be open to the international community to assist democracy and development. There seems to be little doubt that Mr Mugabe will win the election with a sizeable majority. The pressing question is what kind of majority will President Mugabe aim for and what might be the consequences.
	The significance of the majority rests on various political developments in Zimbabwe in the past year or so. ZANU-PF is showing signs of discontent and various factions within the party are jockeying for succession. Two of these factions are led by former ZANU-PF government members. Various analysts predict that if President Mugabe wins a simple majority, his authority might be weakened, at least one faction would be strengthened and the party might be restructured to purge it of enemies. However, this kind of result would make it easier for the international community—especially SADC—to pronounce the election reasonably fair.
	If President Mugabe is intent on a two-thirds majority, he would have to negotiate with factions within ZANU-PF on issues to do with succession. I think that at this stage the MDC would be unlikely to retain almost any kind of credibility after such a crushing defeat. This in turn could lead to weak and unstable government in a falling economy.
	Of course, it is also possible that the election abuses and faction fighting could become so intense that the elections are stalled. This, in the view of one expert at least, could well provoke mass action by the MDC, trade unions and civil society organisations.
	Zimbabwe appears to be moving towards ever more dangerous waters and the threat of a political and humanitarian disaster moves ever nearer. Inflation is, I think, 100 per cent greater this year than it was last year; corruption is at an all time high, as has been said by previous speakers; investment is decreasing month by month; and food shortages in the rural areas are reaching acute levels. The diaspora continues, especially in South Africa, which itself faces a growth in jobless people and a not too distant election in which President Mbeki's promises of improvement will be tested.
	What can be achieved in this unpromising context and where can support for a move towards democracy be found? One hopeful change, again referred to by previous speakers, is that the immensely influential COSATU, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, is now openly critical of President Mbeki's quiet diplomacy approach, and other South African institutions such as the South African Institute of International Affairs—which, incidentally, is headed up by President Mbeki's brother—the South African Communist Party, the NGO Coalition and, very importantly, the South African Council of Churches, have echoed COSATU's concerns.
	These are significant events and co-ordinated internal pressure in the context of the South African elections might successfully persuade South Africa to take a stronger role in Zimbabwe. Previously stalwart African state supporters of President Mugabe's policies, including Botswana, Ghana and Senegal, are questioning the conditions for a free and fair election.
	A post-election economic recovery programme funded by the international community could be—in theory at least, and possibly in practice—agreed between the South African and Zimbabwean trades unions and other locally based groups. There could be rather more serious sanctions against business backers of Mugabe's regime. Sanctions stronger than the current ones on travel by Members of the Zimbabwean Government should be announced by the EU and the EU Cotoadu Treaty, which has a strong civil society element, should be brought to the fore.
	There could be greater efforts to publish and disseminate the true extent of election abuses in Zimbabwe. President Mugabe has proved extremely adept at "packaging" his policies and even neighbouring countries are not widely aware of the extent of torture and other violations in Zimbabwe. A recent publication, the Zimbabwean, which is a weekly newspaper, will go some way towards redressing this balance.
	Like other speakers, I refuse to believe that nothing can be done. I do not accept the current conditions in Zimbabwe. I am fairly certain that there will be a great deal of political and civil unrest in the near future and no one can deny that the world has been given ample warning of what is to come. If we are sincere in believing that abuses on the scale of those in Zimbabwe now are unacceptable, we must act.
	This will require a more determined and co-ordinated approach based on political will. I therefore ask the Minister what will be the Government's response to the election and what plans are in hand to intervene to prevent conflict in Zimbabwe and perhaps in the southern Africa region more generally?

Baroness Cox: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Park, for securing this timely debate and I congratulate her on her tireless endeavours on behalf of so many people who have suffered for far too long in the tragic situation in Zimbabwe.
	I wish to focus on two issues: the Zimbabwe Government's policies towards NGOs and the plight of the churches.
	On 23 November last year the Zimbabwean Parliament passed the NGO Bill which will have very serious implications for non-governmental organisations. For example, it will require them to register with a newly appointed commission, involving potential unprecedented interference and control and is a yet further attempt by the ZANU-PF elite to eliminate any threats to its stranglehold on power.
	The Government will now be able to use far-reaching powers to close down any NGO that does not support the regime or which is seen to threaten the regime by monitoring and reporting human rights abuses. David Coltart, an opposition MP, says that the NGO Bill is,
	"one of the worst attacks on the independence of the church".
	Sebastian Bakare, an Anglican Bishop, says,
	"it is putting the church in a situation where it will be incapacitated. I think it's the beginning of the persecution of the church. We're heading for tough times".
	Furthermore, other bodies reporting on political violence and engaging in voter education—almost entirely funded from abroad—will be prevented from operating. With less information on domestic human rights and governance, the government, who have already suppressed the independent print and broadcast media, will become even less accountable to their people.
	This act has still not been signed by the president, but the delay in the granting of presidential assent does not mean that there are not already serious problems for NGOs.
	For example, it was reported on 24 February that Zimbabwe is already considering the deregistration of about 30 NGOs which it alleged had misused millions of dollars they had received from foreign donors last year. Zimbabwe's National Association of NGOs points out that the existing Private Voluntary Organisations Act—which dates from the era of Rhodesian UDI under Ian Smith—has no provision for state supervision of NGO accounts. The fear is that the Government are busy planning to implement provisions in the new NGO Bill while it is still awaiting President Mugabe's signature for enactment.
	These plans to stifle dissent through wide-ranging powers of regulation and the prohibition on foreign funding will have serious repercussions for organisations working on some of the most critical support projects. Zimbabwe has one of the worst AIDS epidemics in the world and it is estimated that it has so far left behind nearly 1 million AIDS orphans. That point was made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
	Worst affected are children in rural areas, where their plight is made worse through shortages of drugs, food and other resources. Food distribution and AIDS relief projects which are at present almost entirely foreign funded will almost certainly have to close down. That will have disastrous consequences for the poorest people. It is sadly timely that we are discussing these issues just two days before the Commission for Africa reports.
	The equivocal attitude of many international relief agencies appears to have left them with the worst of all possible worlds. Perhaps this may serve as a lesson for the future. For far too long many people have refused to point a finger at the power lust and corruption of the ZANU-PF regime and identify it as the fundamental cause of the crisis in Zimbabwe for fear that it might jeopardise their operations in the country. As a result the crisis was allowed to grow unchecked by censure from international and regional bodies. But it has done those bodies little good. The regime—running out of scapegoats—has now chosen to portray aid and relief organisations as the agents of western imperialism.
	After a concerted campaign by President Mugabe the UN World Food Programme, World Vision, Christian Care, Lutheran Development Services and several other donors have all had to cut back their work in Zimbabwe. Until recently the Government claimed Zimbabwe had sufficient home-grown maize to feed its 11.5 million people. Last year President Mugabe told British television:
	"We are not hungry. Why foist this food on us? We don't want to be choked. We have enough".
	President Mugabe cannot accept food aid from the same western governments he accuses of trying to "recolonise" his country. But for propaganda reasons, he desperately needs to show the world that his seizure of farms has led to a food surplus rather than to food shortages in what could and should be a land of plenty.
	But in January, maize meal again disappeared from shops across the country. The much-promised food surplus has come to nothing and desperate shoppers have been forced to buy imported rice or flour at prices they cannot afford. Thousands of once productive fields throughout the country have turned brown and are overgrown with weeds.
	Archbishop Pius Ncube of Bulawayo says the Government,
	"want to control the food and politicise it, they'd rather kill people for the sake of power".
	He travels widely ministering to his flock in Matabeleland, a region long marginalised by the Government in Harare, and tells us from first-hand experience:
	"There is continuing starvation in certain parts in the country and food is being used as a political tool in certain areas".
	Archbishop Ncube has been a shining example of courage and principle in speaking out on behalf of the people of Zimbabwe. But sadly too many leaders on the continent—church leaders and political leaders—have seen their solidarity as being with the government of Zimbabwe, corrupt and bent on maintaining their grip on power at any price. Speaking in Cape Town recently, the archbishop said President Mbeki had failed to give leadership on the issue of Zimbabwe—a point that has been made by other noble Lords—and that he would be booed in the streets of Harare if he were to ask the ordinary people what they feel about his so-called quiet, but in effect silent, diplomacy.
	Will the Minister tell us specifically what is being done through the FCO's Global Opportunities Fund—especially the economic governance and sustainable development programmes—to engage South Africa as an ally rather than an obstacle in working towards a resolution of the crisis in Zimbabwe? Access to justice, freedom of expression, the rule of law and combating torture all lie at the heart of those programmes, as do strengthening the role of civil society and promoting an independent media. These are the very issues on which the people of Zimbabwe long to hear the government of South Africa speak out.
	That great hero of South Africa's own struggle for freedom and democracy, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, has not been afraid to speak out and to be a voice for the voiceless of Zimbabwe. His stern condemnation of the brutal excesses of the government there led President Mugabe to describe him as,
	"an angry, evil and embittered little bishop".
	Many people are disappointed that the bishops of the Anglican Church have not done more to distance themselves from the Anglican Bishop of Harare—Nolbert Kunonga—in view of his outrageous pronouncements of support for President Mugabe. He is one of the most vociferous cheerleaders for the regime and has mocked those who oppose President Mugabe as "puppets of the West". As a reward Bishop Kunonga was given a farm in one of Zimbabwe's prime agricultural districts and he evicted more than 50 black workers with their families to make way for his own staff. His actions seriously damage the international reputation of Anglicanism.
	Meanwhile, church leaders and members who criticise the Government face intimidation, arrest, detention and—in the case of foreigners—deportation. As one Methodist minister said:
	"The state operates in a sinister way, not with any open or direct threats, but it certainly gives those who are proclaiming truth and justice cause to pause. We have to think before we make any statements because we know that the state, at the appropriate point, will take further action".
	For example, in a move apparently intended to put pressure on the church to desist from criticising the ZANU-PF regime, the government charged the Catholic diocese of Hwange and the Catholic Mater Dei hospital in Bulawayo with exchanging foreign currency illegally.
	Last October Christians Together for Justice and Peace, an informal, ecumenical group of church leaders based in Bulawayo, convened a meeting of local pastors and other church leaders at the local Roman Catholic cathedral. The purpose of the meeting was to consider the impact of the NGO Bill on the work of the churches, and to decide a joint Christian response.
	However, the CIO, the state security police who regularly monitor church services, took the leaders to the central police station saying the meeting was banned under the provisions of the Public Order and Security Act. I suggest that it is deeply disturbing that church leaders should have been banned effectively from considering the implications of a new piece of legislation for their Christian work.
	Will Her Majesty's Government recognise that there is an urgent need for clear, authoritative and high-profile statements rebutting the propaganda of the Government of Zimbabwe? EU sanctions, renewed again only last month and directed only at named members of the Zimbabwe regime, are misleadingly blamed for bringing economic hardship to the population of Zimbabwe. Silence can all too easily be perceived as agreement and President Mugabe is a master at misleading and manipulating international opinion. We have a moral duty to stand up to his misrepresentations and to those of his remaining allies in the region.
	Some claim that by speaking out we play into President Mugabe's hands, but to be dissuaded from setting the record straight on matters of fact and principle, through fear of how he might respond, simply allows him to set the agenda. We need only to remember the way he has portrayed the international agencies that have been providing humanitarian relief for millions of his countrymen. He is a man without honour, without scruples; he will distort what is said and he wants to present himself as an untarnished hero of the liberation struggle.
	I ask the Minister what strictures we impose, alone or together with our fellow members of the EU, on those countries that repeatedly use their vote at the UN General Assembly and the UN Commission on Human Rights to thwart action being taken against Zimbabwe for abuse of human rights. I hope the Minister will reassure us that there is frank and honest engagement with Africa's regional leaders on the issue of Zimbabwe. Our presidencies of the EU and the G8 mean that we have a unique opportunity to bring clarity and focus to the thinking of the region on these issues.
	Any negotiations on debt restructuring or developmental aid programmes need to be firmly tied to African engagement on good governance and genuine protection of human rights. Perhaps then the people of Zimbabwe will experience a genuine improvement in the quality of their lives and be able to share in the liberation for which they have struggled for so long.

Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Park, for introducing this debate on Zimbabwe, as she introduced the previous debate a year ago. Since then, the already dire situation there has not improved; it has deteriorated even by international standards. Here I have to dissent from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside: Zimbabwe is experiencing a first-class disaster.
	A note that I received two days ago from a correspondent in Zimbabwe reads:
	"The repression continues unabated. A couple of weeks ago the Government chucked out the remaining international reporters and closed down another newspaper. Food aid continues to be used as a tool to starve people as punishment for having voted for the opposition, and the elections will be a shambles. No observation has been properly planned let alone started. The South Africans will send some rubber stamping representative".
	It is generally acknowledged that the situation on the ground is dire, both politically and economically, so I do not need to spend much time going over that ground, but I shall give a few highlights. The UN International Crisis Group reported in April 2004 that at the core of the state is,
	"violence, used in both targeted and indiscriminate ways".
	A Foreign Office Written Answer in the other place on 18 May 2004 stated:
	"The Government of Zimbabwe . . . has repeatedly harassed and intimidated and attacked the opposition, independent media and wider civil society".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/5/04; col. 876W.]
	The FCO office states that the re-election campaign of Mugabe in 2002 was characterised by,
	"systematic violence and . . . draconian restrictions on freedom of speech, movement, association and assembling".
	After a visit last year, Stephen Irwin, QC, chairman of the Bar Council of England and Wales, talked of the,
	"destruction of a once fine working justice system".
	The electoral process is manipulated by means of,
	"beatings, arrests, bribery, fraud and intimidation".
	Opposition spokesmen are routinely arrested on trumped-up charges and the judges who throw them out are themselves forced out of office. Youth militias—the so-called Green Bombers—are trained to torture and to kill opponents. All that comes on top of the massacre of 25,000 Ndebele, who supported Joshua Nkomo in the 1980s.
	So much for the politics. The economy is, if anything, worse. According to the International Crisis Group it has been,
	"shrinking at a world record speed".
	Since 2000, GDP has been declining at an average rate of about 10 per cent a year; inflation has been running at several hundred per cent a year; and foreign investment has completely collapsed. With the decimation of agriculture, mining and residual tourism produce what foreign exchange there is. Once the breadbasket of Africa, Zimbabwe cannot feed its own population. The Economist Intelligence Unit reports that 70 per cent of the 11.8 million inhabitants are on the verge of starvation and are supported by food aid. The proportion of people between 15 and 49 suffering from HIV/AIDS is about 30 per cent, one of the top five in the world.
	Summing up, the FCO writes:
	"The economic decline has been caused largely by years of government corruption and mismanagement, but this has been compounded by the disruption to the crucial agricultural sector, where the Government has sanctioned invasion of commercial farms by its supporters, precipitating collapse in investor confidence and capital flight".
	Zimbabwe now ranks 151 out of 155 countries in the 2005 Index of Economic Freedom.
	On any criterion, the Government of Zimbabwe are not fit to run the country. They lack the competence, integrity, mandate and concern for the public well-being to do so. It is in fact a failed state and the international community should be prepared to treat it as such. What is to be done? The response of the international community, including, I regret to say, Her Majesty's Government, has been pathetically weak. The only EU sanction in place is a travel ban and assets freeze—full of holes—for 95 named individuals. The Commonwealth suspended Zimbabwe from membership before Zimbabwe left voluntarily. When asked the question, "We invaded Iraq, why not invade Zimbabwe?", the FCO replied in an official paper:
	"We were able to take action in respect of Iraq because of its defiance of mandatory UN Security Council resolutions. There has been no Security Council resolution in respect of Zimbabwe".
	But that statement omits the fact that the UK has never asked for one. It has sponsored a resolution before the UN Commission on Human Rights, but the FCO reports:
	"Regrettably, other African states introduced motions to block discussion".
	Last year, HMG considered tabling a resolution on Zimbabwe at the UN General Assembly; perhaps it did but as far as I know nothing has come of it.
	The EU's game may be called "Waiting for Mbeke". President Mbeke of South Africa has promised to secure Mugabe's removal by quiet diplomacy. It is so quiet that no one has been able to hear it. Now the International Crisis Group talks of,
	"crafting special benchmarks and timelines for a free and fair electoral process".
	Words, words, words, signifying nothing.
	Let us start from principle and try to work down to practicality. The UN High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, which reported on 7 December, and which this House debated on 2 February this year, laid down the doctrinal basis for intervention in Zimbabwe; namely,
	"the duty to protect the innocent".
	It squares this with the UN's primary purpose, to maintain international peace and security, by stating:
	"Any event or process that leads to large-scale death or lessening of life chances . . . is a threat to international security".
	That point was powerfully reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, and other noble Lords, in connection with HIV-infected emigration from Zimbabwe. According to the eminent panel, state sovereignty today—
	"clearly carries with it the obligation of a State to protect the welfare of its own peoples".
	If it fails to do so,
	"some portion of those responsibilities should be taken up by the international community, acting in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights".
	This reform doctrine is not universally accepted, but it has already been acted on in Somalia, Central America, Yugoslavia and the Congo. At present, there are 65,000 UN troops engaged in peacekeeping operations around the world, including seven missions to Africa. The bottom line is that assault on the innocent—politically and economically—is increasingly accepted as a valid ground for intervention under Chapters VI and VII of the UN charter.
	My own view is that we should move rapidly up the escalator of sanctions, culminating in military intervention to depose Mugabe and his gangster Government if they do not give up power voluntarily. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, said that he could not see a road map and perhaps mine is naive, but here is my road map. Her Majesty's Government should first bring the Zimbabwean situation to the attention of the UN Security Council as a threat to international peace and security under Chapter VI, Article 34. The Security Council may recommend such peaceful measures to settle the problem as it deems appropriate. Under Article 41, these involve applying economic and diplomatic sanctions. Should these fail to do the job, it can authorise the use of military force to restore security under Chapter VII. I would envisage a maximum period of about one year for this process to go through, leading to the removal of the present regime and UN-supervised elections to choose its successor.
	I will be told that this is pie in the sky: that France, China or Russia would veto any such measures. I do not know whether that is true. Have the waters been tested? Have Her Majesty's Government tried to co-ordinate a robust UN strategy with the United States and its European partners? I do not know. Perhaps the Minister will tell us.
	However, even if the United Nations refuses to move, the USA and UK, acting together, have the power to bring down the regime by stopping aid of any kind until a legitimate government are installed. They provide most of the aid on which Zimbabwe subsists.
	Secondly, we are told that President Mbeke would object. It was right to give South African quiet diplomacy a chance. It is equally necessary to recognise, however, that it has failed and that we may have to act independently of South Africa if we are to bring succour to the suffering people of Zimbabwe. My hunch is that any external pressure on Zimbabwe, or even any credible threat of such, will cause the regime to collapse.
	In short, my criticism of Her Majesty's Government is that while their initiatives have been invariably well-meaning, they have been completely ineffective. The Government have not been willing to invest any political capital in ensuring that they are effective, even at this late date. They must now decide to do so.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, has always been a staunch friend of Zimbabwe. She has worked extremely hard in recent months to ensure that the ordeal of the people remains firmly on our agenda. I know that many thousands of Zimbabweans would be extremely grateful to her for highlighting their desperate situation once again today. There is less than three weeks to go before an election which is universally acknowledged as already having been rigged to ensure that the aged despot will have another five years to complete the ruin of the country and the destitution of his people.
	Recent experience, however, has shown that dictators can be toppled and usurpers ousted, and the will of the people can prevail. In Ukraine, they secured the victory of President Yushchenko. In Togo, the unopposed succession of the late ruler's son was stopped and an election is to be held. In Lebanon, popular demands for the withdrawal of Syrian troops have almost forced that to happen.
	Unfortunately, the international community is not united on Zimbabwe. That is the fallacy in the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. He would never get a resolution through the Security Council, as he wishes, because it would be vetoed by the Chinese and the Russians.

Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for giving way. He says that a resolution would be vetoed by China and Russia. What evidence does he have for that?

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I shall come on to that. As the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, may be aware, in the collapse of the Zimbabwean economy, which has been described by several noble Lords, a vacuum has been left in which the Chinese are intervening in a big way. They have economic interests in preserving the Mugabe regime, which would certainly compel them to take such a stand in the Security Council. The Russians, of course, are vehemently opposed to the idea of international interventions along the lines that the noble Lord suggested, where it is primarily to prevent an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe. That is not yet, unfortunately, part of customary international law.
	In Zimbabwe, the people cannot act as they did in Beirut or Kiev because of the curfews, laws inhibiting freedom of expression or assembly and the arbitrary arrests of opposition candidates which have been mentioned—particularly including Godfrey Chimombe in Shamva last month and Joel Mugariri in Bindura. Your Lordships will be aware of the case of Hilda Mafudze, the gutsy candidate for Manyame, who reported that 11 of her young helpers were set upon by ZANU-PF thugs, and the police refused to act.
	I wonder what it takes to convince the neighbours that the will of the people is being subverted. Journalists were not allowed to ask any questions after the press conference that Condoleezza Rice had with the South African Foreign Minister last week, but the Secretary of State's spokesman said afterwards that monitors should be allowed to observe the process.
	Yet the regime has shown its true colours, as has been said, by arresting and threatening three journalists last month, forcing them into exile, frightening another into hiding; by closing down the Weekly Times as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, has pointed out—the fourth paper to have its licence revoked under the infamous Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act; by the draconian process in the NGO Bill, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox; by the Public Order and Security Act, also mentioned by the noble Baroness; the refusal of entry, twice, to delegations from the South African trade union organisation COSATU, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside; and by the exclusion of the SADC parliamentary forum from the list of those who will allowed to attend the elections.
	There will be an official SADC delegation attending, under the leadership of the South African Minister for Home Affairs. The South African Parliament and the ANC have also each been invited to send a team. I suggest it would be useful if those with direct knowledge of the situation in Zimbabwe would submit written evidence to those delegations, particularly to SADC, in the hope that they might publish it together with their report.
	The assessment of whether an election is free and fair is not just a matter of what happens in the few days leading up to the poll. In the case of Zimbabwe, it ought to include an examination of the presidential elections of 2002 and of the parliamentary elections of June 2000, and the changes in the law which, as has been said, have severely limited freedom of expression and assembly since then, breaking the rules of the SADC election protocol which has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes.
	The examination should look at the numerous reports by the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Churches, the Committee to Protect Journalists and Lawyers for Human Rights; and of course it should cover the many reports in the South African media and on SW Radio Africa, which broadcasts to the people of Zimbabwe, revealing the situation that is concealed from them by their own leaders.
	Any assessment should also review the findings of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. It has documented the case of 32 MPs who have suffered torture, arbitrary detention and severe harassment. I particularly hope that our parliamentary colleagues from SADC countries who are selected for the election observation teams will study the reports and resolutions on Zimbabwe which I understand the IPU will be sending them, and that they will try to meet the MPs who have suffered persecution in Zimbabwe and deal with that matter in their own reports.
	The international community's responsibility for preventing the crisis in Zimbabwe dragging down the rest of southern Africa, as has been described by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, and others, is a huge one. The Commission for Africa is about to launch an agenda for eradicating poverty and accelerating Africa's progress towards meeting the millennium development goals. Yet the economy is in freefall, as has been described by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. The arrears of payments to the International Monetary Fund amount to $306 million, even though Mugabe has found $240 million to buy Chinese military vehicles and weaponry which were delivered at the end of February. That is another answer to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. There is an increasing military relationship between Zimbabwe and China which they have an economic interest in maintaining.
	I wonder whether the Government would ask the IMF to conduct a desk study of the possible steps that could be taken to reverse the trends if conditions allowed, in time for the G8 Gleneagles summit in July. NePAD, the Sachs plan to accelerate the MDGs, and the US Millennium Challenge Fund are all based on the idea that more aid will go to countries which can demonstrate their commitment to good governance, the rule of law and human rights. So countries such as Zimbabwe will not qualify; but when they do get back on the reform track, they ought to be able to make ultra rapid progress by reason of their previous experience and well-educated population.
	So, picking up the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, there should be a framework plan for resuscitating the economy with numbers attached to it, so that the international community can spring into action when the time comes, so that people can see what the benefits would be of a return to democracy.
	Lastly, we are dismayed, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, by the policy of the Home Office of shipping failed asylum seekers back to Zimbabwe even in the cases where their membership of the MDC has been clearly demonstrated. The UNHCR, having kept the situation under review since the violence of March 2002, concluded that,
	"there has been no detectable abatement of political violence against the opposition, particularly the MDC. Instances of violence have continued to occur and ... members real or perceived of the MDC . . . continue to be the target of human rights violations . . . The same applies to other persons who, because of their background, might be considered to be critical of the current regime".
	In the light of that assessment, the UNHCR advises that the suspension of forced removals should continue. I do not go quite as far as that because I know that some who apply for asylum in this country are members of the ZANU-PF or even, in one or two cases, of the CIO. But the Zimbabwe Association has documented 138 cases of Zimbabweans detained since 16 November, and two who had Malawi documentation, who have been detained for over a year. It says that many of the persons detained were poorly represented in the first instance. I can certainly confirm that from my own knowledge of individual cases. Because of the restrictions on legal aid, it is extremely difficult to find representatives willing to act where a fresh application is warranted on the basis of the evidence that comes to light after appeal rights have been exhausted.
	So I would appeal to the Government to consider allowing those who have failed in their asylum applications but who have good documentary proof that they were active members of the opposition to lodge fresh applications with the necessary legal aid.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others have said, Britain has the unique opportunity as president of the G8, having put Africa at the top of the list of priorities for the summit at Gleneagles this July, to require all African states, and particularly those that are members of SADC, to act on Zimbabwe. Quiet diplomacy has failed and we must now call on the rest of Africa to deliver on the commitments of the Harare Declaration, to "work with renewed vigour" for,
	"democracy, democratic processes and institutions . . . the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, and just and honest government".
	Those are the things that the people of Zimbabwe want, and we must help Africa to deliver them.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, once again I congratulate my noble friend Lady Park on returning to this vital issue. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and my noble friend Lord Caithness were quite right to say that she is a true friend of Zimbabwe.
	My noble friend Lady Park alluded to the lack of engagement on the part of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Will Her Majesty's Government make representations to Mr Annan about this? The plight of the people of Zimbabwe should not be left off the UN agenda.
	I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said concerning the harm that will be done to humanitarian relief and human rights monitoring as a result of the NGO legislation in Zimbabwe. Major international NGOs must be persuaded that they are not operating in a politically neutral country. The Government should communicate that fact to agencies supported by DfID so that matters of governance and democracy are not excluded from the agenda of those organisation. Their public statements can carry enormous weight internationally.
	The noble Baroness's comments on the reluctance of the Anglican Bishops to face up to this horrific situation within their own communion are well made. I am very sorry that there are no Bishops here for this important debate. The Church is not reluctant to prescribe solutions to crises elsewhere in the world. I hope that they will attend to their scandalous brother, the Bishop of Harare.
	My noble friend Lord Blaker made important points about the impact of the crisis on the economies of the entire region. Will Her Majesty's Government engage in dialogue with the IMF to ensure that the crisis is seen in this context and that Zimbabwe's neighbours are warned of the full consequences of their failure to help bring about a resolution? Many in the United Nations, especially in the African bloc, have said that the situation in Zimbabwe is an internal one, that it does not involve the rest of the world. But I agree with what my noble friend said, and I agreed entirely with my right honourable friend the shadow Foreign Secretary when he said:
	"I don't believe it is internal. I think what we are seeing now is a crisis which is spreading beyond the borders of Zimbabwe. Refugees are pouring into Botswana, in the north part of South Africa, and the humanitarian crisis is not one that is going to be specifically restricted to Zimbabwe".
	The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, drew the House's attention to the shocking case of Roy Bennett. The noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, gave a masterly overview of what might happen after the election in Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF party have continued to commit serious human rights abuses since their last so-called electoral victory in 2002. The systematic persecution of civil society activists and political rivals has left the nation, once the breadbasket of southern Africa, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said, in a shambles. Sadly, there is little reason to suppose that the forthcoming elections in Zimbabwe will not resemble those of the past, as a mockery of democratic rights and governance.
	Yesterday I received a communication from the acting deputy representative of the UNCHR. Since the March 2002 elections, he writes,
	"There has been no detectable abatement of political violence against the opposition, particularly the MDC. Indeed, it would seem that instances of violence have continued to occur and that members and supporters – real or perceived – of the MDC or any other opposition party reportedly continue to be the target of human rights violations, including ill-treatment, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention. The same applies to other persons who, because of their background, might otherwise be considered to be critical of the current regime".
	Under Mugabe's leadership, the nation has undergone massive economic regression, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said. According to the Government of Zimbabwe's own statistics, inflation now stands at 133 per cent, having reached a peak of 622 per cent in January last year. Astonishingly, the governor of the central bank, Gideon Gono, who was unwisely allowed into this country last year on a fundraising visit, forecasts that inflation will be below 10 per cent next year. The negative trend in the economy has caused rises in disease, food insecurity and a general feeling of unease among the population.
	I am appalled that it was possible for ZANU-PF fundraisers to visit this country, and I hope Her Majesty's Government will pay urgent attention to tracking down the donors and conduits of these funds, and to cutting off the fountainhead of ZANU-PF's electoral bribery and patronage.
	Furthermore, the Government have shown very little vigour in pursuing funds that should be frozen under the EU-targeted sanctions. This is an area where they can show they mean business, if indeed they do. What does this say about the Government's commitment to Africa? Are we working to improve conditions there, or are we attempting, as we have done so often in the past, to look like we are?
	An election is looming, described by Mugabe, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, pointed out, as an anti-Blair election. The Zimbabwean Government have stepped up their campaign of fear. The Zimbabwean, a magazine published by refugees living in this country, reports that ZANU-PF youth militias have been ordered to "crush the opposition". During elections in 2000 and 2002, these militias committed many human rights abuses, which have been thoroughly documented by numerous NGOs and governments alike.
	It will be impossible, however, to expose abuses in this election. As my noble friend Lady Park said, all foreign journalists have been kicked out. Without any unbiased reporting, the elections can proceed in any manner the government see fit. SADC election observers are supposed to be granted access to the country 90 days before the election, yet they are not due to depart for Zimbabwe until next Monday, barely two weeks ahead of polling day. The bribery and intimidation of the electorate have all been taking place for months now. The SADC Parliamentary Forum, the only African observer group to issue a scathing verdict on the 2002 elections, has this time been banned from sending a mission.
	Both President Mbeki and Foreign Affairs Minister Zuma of South Africa are on the record as saying that they believe the Zimbabwean election will be free and fair. Earlier this year the South African Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad said:
	"There is no reason to believe that there is anyone who would want to infringe on the rights of the Zimbabwean people to express their will fully at these elections".
	And yet these are the very people to whom the leaders at the G8 Gleneagles summit are expected to entrust leadership of Africa's renaissance through good governance and respect for human rights.
	G8 Ministers ought to be pressed on how they are using the leverage of their meeting. At the very least, they should be charged with the creation of a report detailing what has been achieved in Zimbabwe since the previous G8 meetings. The report ought to include an honest assessment of press freedom, electoral processes and human rights in general. There is no reason for the G8, EU, UK or anyone else to increase aid to southern Africa unless governments of the region can show that they are serious about ensuring reforms towards good governance in Zimbabwe.
	The Prime Minister has made Africa a priority issue. He has created the Commission for Africa, in addition to putting the easing of misery there high on the agenda for the upcoming G8 summit and the British EU presidency. I welcome these ambitions. So far, there have been too many fine words and resolutions and not enough evidence of engagement.
	I have doubts whether the Africa Commission will be able to create meaningful reform in southern Africa. One of its members is President Mkapa of Tanzania, the African leader favoured with more British aid than any other country—most of it, I must say, well spent. On 17 February, President Mkapa made statements exonerating Mugabe for any wrongdoing, saying,
	"I don't see Zimbabwe as an illustration of bad governance. I don't buy it".
	Mkapa also claimed that the opposition MDC was somehow responsible for the violence in Zimbabwe. Such statements can only give comfort to Mugabe and help drag Africa down. Her Majesty's Government must denounce such outrageous statements loudly and clearly.
	President Mkapa and SADC also opposed the recently extended EU sanctions on 95 members of the Mugabe government, and used the opportunity to support Mugabe's land redistribution policy, despite the fact that Mugabe himself has recently admitted its failure as much of the land has been left idle.
	The sanctions currently in place focus predominantly on travel restrictions on those in the regime. They have been in place for three years, but have not done enough to deter widespread government abuses. Zimbabwean refugees living in this country tell me that, without broader scope, these sanctions cannot achieve their desired ends.
	The international community must take a stronger stance with Robert Mugabe and SADC. The UK is well placed to spearhead this, given our central roles in the EU, the Commonwealth and G8. We must transfer the responsibility from Mugabe alone to the rest of the African states as well. It is their responsibility to foster good governance, as they accept through the creation of SADC, NePAD and the African Union.
	Now is not the time to fall silent. We must not allow Mugabe quietly to steal yet another Zimbabwean election. We will be seen as utterly hypocritical by the millions of voiceless in Africa if we stand alongside those fighting for fair elections in Ukraine, only to watch Mugabe get away with murder—literally. Together with the people of Zimbabwe, who deserve freedom and prosperity, Britain can help set the agenda. We must use all the leverage and influence at our disposal to gain support for progress from the international community.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we have had an excellent debate, which has been learned, reflective and at times passionate. I join all noble Lords who have congratulated the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, on having introduced this important debate and on her commitment to helping the people of Zimbabwe. The timing of the debate, coming only three weeks before parliamentary elections, is important. These are difficult times for the people of Zimbabwe, as many noble Lords have so eloquently described. They have been ill served by a regime determined to hold on to power and unconcerned with the suffering that its policies cause.
	I hope that in the time allotted to me I shall be able to answer many of the questions put by noble Lords in the body of my contribution. If I do not respond to any outstanding questions, I shall of course write to noble Lords.
	I had the opportunity last year to provide a background of the situation in Zimbabwe at a similar debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever. It is unnecessary to go over that ground again, as the contributions this afternoon served to underline the depth of understanding in this House of the crisis in Zimbabwe. But I start by reassuring the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and other noble Lords, that Zimbabwe has attracted, and continues to attract, the closest attention of this Government. Our intentions have always been clear: we want to see a return to a democratically accountable government that represents and respects human rights and the rule of law.
	However, this is not just about the UK and what we want. The EU, the Commonwealth and other international partners have all expressed their outrage in the past at a regime that continues to show contempt both for the rule of law and for international opinion. As an example of the broad-based international concern about the ongoing situation in Zimbabwe, I refer noble Lords to the recent decision by the European Union, reached, as it must, in unanimity, to extend the targeted measures against Mugabe's regime for a further 12 months from 21 February. We were, as a Government, strong advocates of that action.
	Parliamentary elections are due on 31 March. Several noble Lords have raised deep concerns about the process of the elections and their credibility. We continue to have grave reservations about the prospects of them being free and fair—in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. Some concessions and cosmetic changes have been made to bring the electoral environment into line with the guidelines on the staging of democratic elections that the Southern African Development Community—SADC—drew up, a point to which my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside referred. Zimbabwe has signed up to those guidelines.
	The guidelines prescribe political tolerance and fair access of all parties to the media. We know that genuine press freedom does not exist in Zimbabwe, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, reminded us. Laws have been passed ensuring government control over the past two years. Much of the private media has been closed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said. Dissenting voices have been arrested or intimidated, and the public media is largely partisan. To make a concession to SADC, legislation was passed allowing the audio-visual media to cover opposition publicity. That is a minor step forward and should be extended to the written press. But the regime's natural reluctance to tolerate free speech was demonstrated when as recently as 11 February, the authorities launched a crackdown on three of the last remaining correspondents for foreign media organisations, one a British citizen. Regrettably, they have all now left Zimbabwe.
	Freedom to campaign and associate without fear of retribution is enshrined in the SADC principles. Freedom of association has simply not been a reality over the past two years, as the authorities have continued to employ legislation to make it difficult for the opposition to campaign or meet their constituents. Again, despite assertions from Harare that violence will not be tolerated during the election, there have been notable recent examples of MDC candidates and supporters being targeted by the ZANU-PF youth militia.
	Recent moves to bring the youth militia under the wing of the military, to award all security personnel a 1,400 per cent pay rise—as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, reminded us—and to recall all those who have retired from the military in the past 10 years, simply heighten the sense of fear. Relaxing some conditions in the few weeks immediately before the election, while necessary, does not detract from the actions of the past two years.
	An electoral commission has been established as required by SADC principles. But it was established too late and given no office space, funds or staff to do the job that it is meant to in managing the elections. Observers also have concerns about the voters roll, with thousands of alleged "ghost voters" contained in the lists, as well as names missing. Access to the roll has been made very difficult.
	On broader issues, concern has been expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside about the Government's policy to return to Zimbabwe failed asylum seekers. As my honourable friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration said in another place, we have simply brought,
	"our policy on returns of failed Zimbabwean asylum seekers into line with that of every other country".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/11/04; col. 78WS.]
	The decision to resume enforced returns was linked to the mounting number of false claims encouraged by the suspension on returns. Let me be absolutely clear that that change in policy does not reflect any change in our categoric opposition to human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. I also assure the House that every applicant is considered on his or her individual merits, in accordance with our obligations under the UN Convention on Refugees 1951 and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister respond to the point I made earlier? One hundred and thirty eight cases have been documented by the Zimbabwe Association of asylum seekers who the association says were wrongly refused asylum because they had bad representation. Will the Minister consider the suggestion that I made that at least in those cases submitted by the Zimbabwe Association of people whose membership of the MDC is vouched by documentary evidence, they will get another chance to appear before an adjudicator?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, what I can say to noble Lords is that if they have any evidence that those people who have been returned have been abused in any way, we would be very happy to look at that evidence, if noble Lords present it to us.
	If an applicant meets the definition of a refugee—and each case is looked at very carefully, including the history and associations in Zimbabwe of the person in the case—they will be granted asylum.
	On the subject of humanitarian assistance, life is difficult for all Zimbabweans. Our concern is not, as Mugabe would have it, based solely on the problems experienced by white farmers. In fact, many more black Zimbabweans have suffered acutely from a desperate economy and a botched so-called land reform process, which has destroyed the commercial agricultural sector, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, reminded us, and handed stolen land to regime cronies, not to the needy workers as Mugabe has claimed. As I said in the debate last year, we are trying to pick up the pieces from the havoc Mugabe has wrought on his country.
	I assure noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who spoke at length on the issue of food shortages, that our policy continues in remaining committed to helping those most in need. Through DfID, we have contributed £71 million for humanitarian assistance in Zimbabwe since the food crisis emerged in September 2001, and we continue to provide support to more than 1.5 million of the poorest people through international NGOs and the UN. That funds food aid.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, we know that DfID is pursuing a generous and well targeted programme of food aid, but who controls it? Does DfID control it on the ground, or is it handed over to the government? That is the point at issue for people on the ground. It is perfectly wasted if we give food and it is used by Mugabe.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, through its monitoring processes in Zimbabwe, DfID makes sure—so far as it is possible to make sure—that the food goes to the people for whom it is intended and is not dispersed among Mugabe's acolytes. I shall reply in more detail to the noble Baroness in writing. The food aid goes particularly to the chronically ill, and includes seeds and fertilisers.
	HIV/AIDS was brought up by several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Park. Like so much of Africa, Zimbabwe is blighted by the HIV/AIDS pandemic. It is now one of the worst-affected countries in the world, with more than 3,000 AIDS-related deaths per week and 25 per cent of the adult population affected. We are developing new initiatives to support the rollout of anti-retroviral treatment, and to support orphans and vulnerable children. Annual spending on that programme has averaged approximately £8 million over the past few years, and is expected to more than double in the future.
	In both this House and another place, we as a government have been told that we are not doing enough. It is important again to underline the extent of what we are doing, as well as to recognise the limits of what we can do. We continue to work very closely with our international partners to isolate Mugabe and oppose his policies. Mugabe continues to argue that the issue is a bilateral one between us and Zimbabwe. As my noble friend Lord Hughes said, Mugabe's current election campaign is run on the single slogan of "Anti-Blair", which underlines the importance of our maintaining international consensus. The people of Zimbabwe know that the UK has no colonial designs on it, and that the collapse of the economy is down to Mugabe's poor stewardship of the country, not due to Britain. We believe that we have most impact in partnership, notably with the European Union.

Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, I appreciate that we are working through the European Union and perhaps other organisations, but what are we doing? Have we talked to the High Commissioner? We have had silence through South Africa. Are we making our voice felt through South Africa? I would like to know what the Government of my country are doing independently. This is my country; I have a right to know what my Government are doing in this respect.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we continue to raise the matter of the abuse that Mugabe entertains on his own country at all levels—not only though our international partners, but of course bilaterally through our people in Harare. We call in the ambassador. I shall come to that in a moment, and specifically to the noble Baroness's question on Roy Bennett. I believe that my honourable friend Chris Mullin called the ambassador in on 22 February to discuss abuses in Zimbabwe. We put pressure on bilaterally as well as through our international partners.
	On 21 February, the EU rolled over for a further 12 months sanctions that have been in place since 2001 aimed at Mugabe and his political entourage. As noble Lords will know from previous debates, the EU has tabled motions on Zimbabwe at each of the past three meetings of the UN Commission on Human Rights. Many noble Lords have talked about what they saw as the UN's ineffectual progress on the issue. In December, the EU tabled a Zimbabwe resolution at the UN General Assembly, demonstrating the strength of its opinion on Zimbabwe.
	Noble Lords know that Zimbabwe opted to leave the Commonwealth. Partners worked hard to bring about a return to democratic government. The decision to suspend the country for failing to meet basic standards of good governance—ironically known as the Harare principles—was not taken lightly. The noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, talked about how we would approach Zimbabwe in the future. We would be the first to welcome back to the Commonwealth a newly democratised Zimbabwe.
	There were a number of critics of South Africa's role during the debate. We welcome the efforts that President Mbeki has made to encourage Mugabe to adhere to the basic expectation of democracy. However, we are disappointed that there has been little evidence of a positive response from Zimbabwe to South Africa's overtures. We will continue to work with South Africa and other African nations, particularly within SADC, on policies that will bring about the necessary changes.
	Many noble Lords raised the issue of elections. We look to those who provide election monitors, notably SADC, to ensure an objective assessment of the forthcoming elections. They should acknowledge if there are positives, of course. However, a few cosmetic changes just before the election cannot override the abuse of basic human rights of freedom of expression and association which has been endemic for years in Zimbabwe.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Park, accused the African Union of doing very little. We speak to African partners at continental level through the African Union, and at sub-regional level. Like her, we welcome its moves to accept a highly critical document about the conduct of elections in Zimbabwe in 2002. However, we remain frustrated that more progress has not been made. We continue, bilaterally and through international bodies, to press Africa to grasp forcefully the problems inherent in Zimbabwe.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Park, and other noble Lords asked about UN action against Zimbabwe. The EU tabled the resolution at the UNGA last year, which covered human rights. However, noble Lords will know that it fell to a "no action" motion tabled by the African group. It was basically blocked. That was a disappointment to us, of course.
	The noble Baronesses, Lady Park, Lady Cox and Lady D'Souza, the noble Lords, Lord Hughes and Lord Skidelsky, and others asked what the UK was doing—as the noble Lord, Lord Astor, put it, do we mean business? Yes, we do. We have supported the development of civil society in Zimbabwe through a huge number of programmes designed to help those working for a peaceful democratic outcome. We have made a major contribution to ensuring that Zimbabwe's food shortages do not lead to famine. We have helped the EU to have the strongest common position that it has on any African country. We have led the EU's consensus to increase the size of its travel ban three times since it was first imposed. We have introduced an arms embargo. I could continue; I believe that we have done a great deal. Of course, we have to wait for the report of the Commission for Africa and we look forward to its publication.
	In the short time that I have left, I shall deal with the issue of Roy Bennett, which I was asked about by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. I totally agree with her. His prison treatment of hard labour is an outrage. We do not condone, as she does not, any violent behaviour, but the judgment handed down to this man—a year of hard labour—is evidence of the Government of Zimbabwe's selective and completely disproportionate application of justice.
	Roy Bennett has been banned from standing in the March parliamentary elections. Zimbabwean law forbids those imprisoned by courts from standing. However, we would point out that Bennett was imprisoned by parliament, not the courts. MDC is appealing the decision and Mr Bennett's wife is courageously standing until the court rules. We continue actively to raise his imprisonment with the Government of Zimbabwe. I was asked how we do that. We raise it in line with other examples of human rights abuses. The British ambassador raises our concerns regularly and, more recently, Mr Mullin called in the Zimbabwean ambassador to protest strongly about the continued abuses by Zimbabwe's government. We will continue to react strongly.
	I am out of time. I will write to noble Lords on the questions that I have not answered.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, if I thanked everyone individually, I should have to make another speech and that, I am afraid, is not allowed. So I shall merely say that I am deeply grateful to everyone who has spoken; noble Lords have contrived to produce all the different facets of the problems of Zimbabwe.
	I would like to leave with the Minister two questions on which I should be happy to receive written replies. First, how much money have we succeeded, under those famous EU sanctions, in confiscating from ZANU-PF's little funds abroad? Secondly, when the AU, yet again, blocked the discussion in the General Assembly, have we said to it, "No more business, no more help, no more anything, until you allow Zimbabwe to be discussed"?
	I thank everyone and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

European Union: UK Presidency

Lord Dykes: rose to call attention to the forthcoming United Kingdom presidency of the Council of the European Union from 1 July 2005; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, I begin by expressing my gratitude for the chance of raising this subject this afternoon. I hope that the debate will be as fulfilling and gripping as the previous one. I am most grateful to all noble Lords for taking part. I believe that the UK presidency period from 1 July this year until the end of the year will provide special opportunities for this country and this government to seize the moment in, unfortunately, a dauntingly growing European Union agenda.
	Indeed, this is one of the problems facing everyone in the European Community from now on. The inevitably lengthening agenda and the natural growth in the inputs—often understandably demanding of the 10 new states, although they are a small total addition to gross domestic product—means more and more work by the relevant presidency period national administrations and civil servants and their foreign departments in the Council of Ministers to keep up with all the items on this lengthy list.
	The external threat of terrorism, for ever prevalent, has also added hugely to the overall workload. For example, yesterday and today, regarding the stability and growth pact, extremely heavy and deep agendas prevail. That is why I personally felt that it was a good idea to launch this large debate well before 1 July. There is much to think about.
	In the spirit of the work being done, I first pay the warmest of tributes to the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg for their robust energy in tackling huge agendas with the tiniest of the EU's administrative apparatus—apart from Malta, I suppose. They are only nearly half-way through an onerous period and have juggled skilfully with a rolling and sometimes elusive agenda. It is an impressive country indeed, when someone jokingly said that the informal definition of real poverty there was owning two small Mercedes. I believe it is the 11th time that they have handled the presidency, which, when it first started, was a small agenda by present day standards.
	This secular growth in the items to be considered by an ever-growing European Union reflects also the facts of the EU coming more into the world outside, due not only to emergencies, such as 9/11 and after, but also to a deeper relationship arising with both the United States of America and with all other continents, including Asia and China—although perhaps not enough with South America, for some reason; but elsewhere, the growth is spectacular.
	Luxembourg is rightly attaching high priority to the mid-term review of the Lisbon process for greater Union efficiency and productivity, competitiveness and flexible open markets. I note that the UK Government will pick up these cudgels enthusiastically later this year, armed with the Commission's orientation report. On page 9, paragraph 19 of the update document last September, Her Majesty's Government emphasised that since 70 per cent of modern European Union total gross domestic product is now represented by services of all kinds, rather than the old manufacturing or extractive activities, this must be a priority for opening up markets, with the services legislation needed still, since only 20 per cent—would one believe—of trade between member states is so represented.
	Perhaps the Minister can confirm that I am right to say that the European Commission has had another look at the services directive legislation, due to various points that have been put by the member states and, therefore, that we must wait a little longer for the text.
	Huge work is still needed in the financial sector. That is also a practical reason why the Government should not delay any longer in joining an increasingly successful and internationally relevant euro. The Government will say that their hands are full with many other more pressing matters. But the single currency is already turning into a stupendous and unbeatable piece of fundamental deregulation. It should bring tears of gratitude to the most flinty of Hayekian fanatics that this deregulation is the best of all. But they do not see it that way in this country and elsewhere, for some bizarre reason.
	However, as President Chirac reminded us all during his official visit to London on 18 November last year, and to this House where the ceremony took place at the end of the day, to celebrate the entente cordiale anniversary, an economically more dynamic Union must go hand in hand with Europe's traditional attachment to, I quote his words, "its own social model". I believe that the public here needs more guidance on the huge advantages of the Rhineland model of socio-economic balance, which tragically the USA does not possess in any shape or form.
	In her kind reply to me of 21 February, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, the Minister, emphasised Her Majesty's Government's strong support for the Lisbon "mark two", post-Wim Kok review phase, of widening and deepening the single market,
	"through full implementation of existing liberalisation measures, as well as new initiatives".
	I am still waiting for the Government to follow up by energetic efforts to tackle the residual examples of cartel and restrictive practices that remain in the UK and cite such examples to us. We can then get away from the wonderful fantasy notion that prevails in some of the consumer comics called newspapers in Britain, that we do not have any such naughty practices; only wicked continental countries, of course, have them.
	Meanwhile, I congratulate the present Government on offering us last month Command Paper 6450 on prospects for the EU this year and their many plans for the presidency from 1 July onwards.
	Apart from the sad examples of bizarre shyness over the euro, the European monetary system and the need for the Government to promote the EU constitution hard—presumably after the election—I contrast the positive tone of most of the ideas in the White Paper with the reactionary, curmudgeonly, chauvinistic, narrow-minded and plain hostile notions contained in many such White Papers in the still painfully remembered period of Tory governments, eight years ago and more. Yes, we still remember the dark period of recent British political history. Manifestly, the UK has returned, under the Prime Minister's enthusiastic banner, to being European-friendly at last. I am grateful for that, as I hope other noble Lords are.
	I also very much congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his enlightened approach, despite an horrendous personal schedule of meetings worldwide. In his introduction to the White Paper, Jack Straw expressed the hope that such reports would,
	"stimulate the closer and deeper involvement of all parliamentarians as well as the British public in European Union affairs".
	The huge practical difficulty is, of course, the sheer length and complexity of this agenda. So I shall focus on only a few key priorities today to give other noble Lords the chance to speak, and I hope that it will not be too late in the day.
	There will be some 40-plus Council meetings, including the informal meetings at senior level, plus action plan meetings and the rest, and so a hectic time will be had in the British presidency after 1 July.
	From the continuation of the multi-annual strategic programme, concluding, as is intended, with the second presidency period next year under Finland, to the new burdens of the security and weapons of mass destruction strategy now being clamped on an already overcrowded agenda, I have to ask the Minister who is to reply today whether he is confident that every priority will be taken forward. I genuinely have the impression that the "super troika" system is now getting smoother and smoother as more national officials in member states are drafted into the processes. Even Justus Lipsius is apparently getting more used to the continuity work that is needed. But it would be frustrating if disutilities started to creep in to cause the inevitable postponement of some fairly urgent agendas. I believe that one such example is the need for the deepest of common agricultural policy reforms. The Council is always hinting at that but never really properly delivers it.
	The abandonment—literally—of the current extravagant and anti-third-world support system of farm produce subvention in Europe is surely unavoidable now, even if the details will take time to work out. This has to be done anyway to accommodate the needs of many of the 10 new members who will require genuine support, perhaps beyond the initial transitional period. At the same time, the US and Japan should also modernise and reduce their own outrageously expensive systems of farm support, which are often worse than the European examples. That is rarely mentioned in the British press.
	Lest people in the United Kingdom naively think that we are exempt from such radical prescriptions, we, too, must accept alternative land use rather than endless overproduction. I was pleased to see the recent enthusiasm of farmers for the new ecology measures of the European Commission.
	The main themes of the European presidency are, as we know, the fairly bland-sounding notions of security, prosperity and sustainability—not exactly an election manifesto phrase. But they are all more complicated than we may think at first glance. Paragraph 4 on page 3 of the White Paper assures us that climate change will be kept high on the agenda. Perhaps I may ask the Minister and the Government whether the US is now beginning to show a more responsible attitude to this and related matters, pressed by the European Union, I hope.
	But just in case that notion makes us feel smug, perhaps I may also ask the Minister, when he replies, to remind us just how many opt-outs we in Britain now have in the current Union compared with other leading, large-population countries. I hope that the answer is "not too many", when apparently we are so keen to say how crucial—and, ironically, absolutely necessary—integration and qualified majority voting are in all single market legislative processes.
	Personally, I welcome very much the proposal for a European Grand Committee, referred to in the White Paper, to bring all the scrutiny activities into a modern setting in our two Houses—subject, of course, to the elaboration of further details and the ideas of the two Houses. I note the presence of the distinguished chairman of the European Committee here today. After all, this is mainly a parliamentary matter, with the Government presumably supporting from behind.
	Turning to the constitution and the present Bill, I hope that HMG will take strenuous steps, even to some extent, in our forthcoming national election campaign—would I be reasonable to expect something at least?—to rebut and refute some of the rubbish put forward by the anti-EU Neanderthal element in United Kingdom society, and some of the newspapers, which I shall not mention now, about the effects of this remarkable and comprehensive new treaty. It is, after all, the codification and co-ordination of all the previous treaties, right back to the Treaty of Rome, and it also reaches into some important new areas. I suppose that in many ways some of its proposals are very modest and cautious.
	So we know that the new constitution is not a "national" one in any way. It does not undermine us in this sovereign British state. We know that it does not give the power to levy new taxes on the UK; we know that our existing opt-outs are not affected; and, of course, we know that the monarchy is totally unscathed by all those suggestions.
	Sometimes I so admire the more modern attitudes of some other major countries towards these areas. After all, Spain, too, is an ancient kingdom with 1,000 years of fascinating history—indeed, in effect, is that not true of all of us in Europe? But it was good to see the King and Queen of Spain voting in the referendum polling booth in Madrid on 20 February.
	In the raging arguments about the European Union's budget and the financial perspectives for 2007-13, perhaps I may also make the point that the wrangling between 1 per cent, as proposed by the EU five or six, including ourselves, and 1.14 per cent, as proposed by the Commission—some people still stay with the old 1.27 per cent idea—is perhaps less crucial than a sensible compromise agreement when the Commission is grappling with a larger spread of financial commitments. As usual, those commitments have come about as a result of the increasing demands imposed by the burdens of new policy, often put forward first by—guess who?—yes, the member governments themselves.
	The security and WMD programme is a good example of that kind of thing. Meanwhile, real tangible cuts in excessive farm support would, in a very few years, provide in part money for alternative policy programmes. It really is essential for the UK Government, if possible, to adhere to the June 2005 date with Luxembourg for the deadline of the political agreement on future financing. That will add considerable practical benefits for the UK in its own presidency period.
	By the way, does the Minister expect the full agreement on the Capital Requirements Directive (CAD 3) under the Financial Services Action Plan to be achieved under the UK presidency? If time were available, I would ask many other questions but I shall not inflict those on the House except, in broader geo-strategic terms, to express the hope that, after President Bush's recent visit to the European institutions, countries and peoples, the relationship is now based on total equality between the two entities—the EU and the US—and it is not simply the case that we are taking on some of its suggestions.
	I suppose that, leaving aside the vital work of EU3 vis-à-vis Iran, the Council of Ministers' foreign policy agenda in terms of broad strategic objectives can be expressed in the following areas: the repair work on EU-US relations, which I have just mentioned; standing up to Russia and stabilising the Balkans; energetic work on the Middle East road map; the fulfilment of the millennium goals; new links with the People's Republic of China; and achieving effective true multilateralism—not an American hegemony—in the new United Nations.
	With the Union's new confidence, I believe that those are all realistic aims. I also hope very much that the work needed on the security strategy of the Union and WMD will be carried forward energetically. It must surely be important for the European Union to develop these themes. It must do so as a result of the Thessaloniki decisions. I feel that it needs to avoid unnecessary duplication by liaison with NATO and the UN, but also, a little paradoxically, that it needs to ensure that the budget resources are put up when the decisions are taken forward. Surely it will be essential to resolve the ongoing struggle by the High Representative's WMD spokesperson against the Commission's own WMD unit, which is starved of funds for any serious work.
	I could, of course, have gone on with a vast list of points, but relative brevity, even with major matters of policy, remains the highest virtue. After all, there is presumably always the next opportunity, especially in a sensibly administered House such as this one. I beg to move for Papers.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I welcome this debate on the forthcoming United Kingdom presidency of the European Union, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for calling attention to this important issue.
	The opportunity for shaping the agenda during a presidency is often trumpeted but, in reality, it is limited. However, it is a great opportunity to highlight European issues that are of specific importance to the UK and to raise general awareness about the EU and its policies. The presidency must rightly work within the framework of the EU's 2004-06 multi-annual strategic programme and the more recently agreed strategic objectives for 2005-09, both of which it helped to shape with its partners in the European Council, the European Parliament and the Commission. Such continuity was important for a Union of 15 member states, but it is absolutely essential for an efficient and effective Union of 25. That is why I welcome the provisions in the constitutional treaty for a full-time President of the European Council and teams of three member countries holding the presidency collectively for periods of 18 months.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, pointed out, the list of issues to be addressed by the UK presidency is vast, and so I will focus on just three. First, there is the need to put Europe back on the path to long-term prosperity. The European Union is unique, and it has been and is a huge success. It has enabled an increasing number of countries to work together in partnership to bring peace, stability and prosperity to its citizens. However, enlargement, globalisation and demographics have brought new economic challenges. If we do not rise to meet these challenges, we will not be able to maintain our distinctive model of society, with its welfare, education and health systems. The status quo is not an option if we want greater social justice.
	The high expectations raised when the heads of state and government of the European Union met in Lisbon in 2000 and launched a series of ambitious reforms at national and European level have not been properly met. In many ways, the reform package was too complex. The Commission blamed member states for lack of progress and commitment to the process. Member states blamed the Commission. The reality is that political leadership and commitment are needed at both European and national levels to bring about higher growth.
	Following the excellent Kok report, both the Commission and the Council have reassessed the Lisbon strategy, and the spring European Council will agree a new partnership for growth and jobs. Launched under the current Luxembourg presidency, it is the UK presidency that must drive this new strategy to unleash Europe's real economic potential. Economic reform and boosting jobs and growth throughout the EU are absolute necessities if we are to remain competitive in the face of ever-increasing challenges from countries such as India and China, as well as to improve people's lives and well-being in an ageing society. Our economic prosperity is also, I believe, inextricably linked with the stability of the Union that the recent enlargement has helped to consolidate.
	Thanks to the Chancellor's effective economic management, Britain is an economic success, with solid growth, low inflation and high levels of employment. The UK, during its presidency, is well placed to lead on a European growth plan. As we do so, however, we should heed and learn from the often-ignored economic successes of some of our partners. No member state has all of the solutions, and we have to learn from each other's best and worst practice. Germany has sluggish growth and very high unemployment, partially due to the economic burden it has carried since reunification. According to the OECD, however, when it comes to measuring productivity, 11 of the pre-enlargement 15 member states have higher productivity levels than we do.
	Urgent action is needed in each of our 25 countries in order to halt economic decline and to ensure sustainable economic development. I know that the Government well understood the importance of the Lisbon agenda, and were frustrated by its lack of progress. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could assure me that, during the UK presidency, the Government will do their utmost to pursue the new growth plan, encouraging all member states and the European Commission to co-operate more closely in delivering the often painful reforms. Individual member countries cannot reach their full economic potential unless they are part of a successful Union; yet the success of the Union depends on the economic success of each member state. The sum of the whole is certainly greater than the sum of the parts.
	My second issue is an integral part of the growth plan: the need to improve European and national regulation. This is essential for business and consequently for growth and prosperity. I am sure we would all agree that the existing regulatory environment in the EU is overly complex; that the cumulative impact of individual pieces of legislation is costly; and that sometimes the impact of draft EU legislation is not properly assessed. I believe that the situation has improved in the past couple of years, but I certainly welcome the new better-regulation package proposed by the European Commission. Most importantly, this will simplify regulation and it will also cut red tape by withdrawing and/or amending EU laws which prove to be excessive.
	I trust that my noble friend can assure me that this particular proposal will be processed speedily and implemented. Excessive and obsolete laws are not just bad for business: they are bad for the reputation of the European Union. I hope that, under the UK presidency, efforts will also be made to find a methodology for impact assessments that is acceptable to both the Commission and the Council. The introduction by the Commission a couple of years ago of an impact assessment for all draft proposals was a huge step forward. Unfortunately, the Council does not fully agree with the methodology used, and consequently questions the results of each impact assessment. An agreed common methodology would be more efficient and would instil confidence in the process.
	As a realistic but very committed European, I acknowledge that some European legislation has been excessive; but I take this opportunity to remind those constant critics of the so-called "Brussels red tape" of three things. If the internal market is to function effectively and provide the much-needed and desired level playing field for business, there have to be common standards, and therefore rules and regulations that are common to all. It is much easier for a business selling goods to other parts of the EU to grapple with one set of rules rather than a separate set of rules for each country with which it trades.
	I know that the Government are mindful of the problem of gold-plating, but it still exists. It is not just a British disease, although we suffer more than most. Shortly before the Dutch presidency, I had a meeting with the head of the Dutch CBI, who spoke of horses designed in Brussels that had turned into camels before they reached the streets of The Hague. It is extremely important to have an open and transparent transposition process. I welcome the fact that most government departments now usually produce transposition notes when implementing legislation, but I regret that too often they are not available or accessible to the public.
	Finally, I turn to an issue about which I feel passionately—democratic engagement. I recently made the case for providing people with more information about the system of governance in which they live, in order to enable them to participate in that system. I now extend that case to information about the European Union and its policies. The European information gap is legendary. It is regrettable at any time but, as we near the campaign for a referendum on the constitutional treaty, it is one that has to be met. Before people vote in a referendum, there must be an informed debate; but that debate can take place only if people have access to the facts about the European Union as well as facts about the constitutional treaty.
	I am not suggesting a propaganda exercise. That would be both wrong and counterproductive. However, people need factual information. Indeed, they have a right to factual information about what the EU is, what it does, why it does it, and how it affects their lives. The UK presidency of the European Union provides an excellent opportunity for the Government to meet their duty of explanation, and I would be grateful for an assurance from the Minister that this opportunity will not be lost.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I begin by welcoming the initiative and the good fortune of my noble friend Lord Dykes in securing this debate on the forthcoming United Kingdom presidency of the European Union. I also warmly embrace the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, in a very powerful and sensible conspectus of the issues we face.
	The adoption of the Multi-Annual Strategic Programme by the EU Council in December 2003, setting out the Union's agenda for 2004-2006, and the assumption of responsibility for carrying the priorities forward by the six member countries involved in the presidency during this period, show the awareness of the Union's leaders that it does not make sense to change direction every six months, on the assumption of the presidency by a new member state. If the gulf between rhetorical setting of goals and the effective delivery of ends is to be bridged by the European Union, then continuity of purpose is essential.
	The Prime Minister made it a principal aim to have that need recognised in the constitutional treaty. In the provisions for the continuing presidency contained in the treaty, it may be seen that he was successful. That achievement deserves warm appreciation. However, it follows that there are no startling innovations of policy for the European Union adumbrated in the recent White Paper, Command Paper 6450, on the prospects for the EU during our presidency.
	It is none the worse for that, as, increasingly, the problem with the European Union is its adoption of grandiloquent, unexceptionable strategies without the means or, perhaps, sometimes even the will to implement them. By way of example, I take the strategy for Russia, which Sub-Committee C of the European Union Committee, to which I have the honour to belong, devoted attention some months ago.
	To be candid, that Russian strategy did not live up to its original billing. It was so devoid of concrete results for Russia and those who would invest in Russia that it cannot be surprising that President Putin appears uninterested in the Union, preferring bilateral dialogue with individual members where necessary and increasingly withdrawing from a policy of developing co-operation with the Union to a policy of self-dependency for Russia. That is not a desirable development. It has come about as a result of wholly inadequate institutional arrangements for carrying forward the original strategy, with responsibility divided and, for the most part, unco-ordinated and entrusted to relatively low-level officials lacking clout.
	I leave aside the issue of the financial resources required to give meaning to the strategy for Russia, although I have something to say about money in the context of the current discussion about the Union's financial perspectives, which are to run from 2007 to 2013. The Government have opposed the Commission's proposal for a budget worth 1.26 per cent of European Union gross national income. The agreement on future financing is supposed to be reached by June. In this cold financial climate, the European Union will have to be cold-eyed about what it intends to spend on its millennium programmes and grand strategies. If it is not prepared to spend the money, it should refrain from proclaiming grand commitments. That simply leads to disillusionment all round.
	To take a particular example, it would be tragic if the optimism of the Ukraine about association with the Union was replaced by despair due to misapprehension about what it might expect of the Union. The readiness to finance the Union's broad schemes should be related to its citizens' willingness to pay for them. The governments of the member states might make a new beginning and seek to explain the potential dividends from such broad projects as the backing of the Ukraine. They might be surprised, as they clearly were by the public's most generous response to the tsunami disaster, by the readiness of Europe's citizens to see those larger responsibilities accepted by their governments on their behalf.
	I conclude by turning from the broad prospect to a particular matter of immediate and sharp importance. The White Paper describes 2005—this year—as a crucial year for development and states that, in particular, Africa will be a priority of the United Kingdom's EU presidency. Even now, in the small country of Togo, with its 3.5 million people, there is an opportunity for the presidency to act to end 40 years of dictatorship and impoverishment. The Government will be aware that following the death of Eyadema, who had held his country under a brutal subjection for decades, his son attempted a coup d'état a month ago.
	That has been followed by a promise of an election, but one conducted in accordance with the constitution drafted by the late dictator to ensure that the principal opposition candidate, Gilchrist Olympio, the son of a founder of that country, was excluded from standing. Having been gravely wounded in an assassination attempt during the run-up to a previous election, Gilchrist Olympio had to seek security outside his country, but I understand that he is still the favoured candidate of the opposition coalition. If he were to be prevented from standing for election due to the retention of the disgraceful constitution of the late dictator, that would be a clear denial of democracy.
	The Government have great authority in this. France, in particular, as Togo has long been under France's wing, but also our Government must move to secure a truly open election in that small country. If our Prime Minister's concern for governance and poverty, expressed in the setting up of the Commission for Africa and in the White Paper, is to have meaning and demonstrate commitment, action now is required in this matter. Let us not be guilty once more of rhetoric without follow-up. Let us show that the European Union is capable of influencing by its own action the spread of its values of justice and democracy in Africa, which can help to secure development and prosperity in that continent.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for initiating a debate on this important subject. As he and other noble Lords have said, there is a whole range of subjects that we could consider under this heading. I am especially anxious that the UK should use its presidency to enthuse and motivate others with its commitment to development.
	It may be suggested by some that the role of the presidency is simply to try to create a consensus among European countries. Of course, that is an important part, but the role of the presidency is also to set a lead. I am very much looking forward to the United Kingdom setting a lead in the area of development.
	I briefly mention the question of debt, because that really belongs to the G7 group of countries—of which, of course, the UK will also be president. The United Kingdom has agreed to remit 100 per cent of debt servicing from 2005-15 and it could persuade other countries in the European Union, such as France, which is rather resistant to it, or the Netherlands, which is resistant to the idea of revaluing IMF gold, to follow its own example and commitment in that area.
	There is another aspect of that which is not directly related, but is of particular concern to many non-governmental organisations. That is the way in which so many stolen assets, especially from African countries, have found their way into banks. Can the UK use its presidency to encourage the European Parliament to insist on the co-operation of the banks in investigating those stolen assets? I have been very brief on debt, but I hope that that brevity will not be taken as any indication that I regard remission of debt, especially for the poorest countries of the world, as anything other than a priority.
	Secondly, equally briefly, on aid, we need more and better aid. The figure of 0.7 per cent of gross national income has been around for many decades now. The European Union might commit itself to achieving that target by 2010 as a collective entity. Why is it that, 35 years after that figure was first put forward, countries are still setting such low targets? Better aid is indicated by greater coherence and consistency between policies on development and trade and policies related to aid. It is no good putting in a lot of aid if trade relationships are fundamentally flawed.
	The aid needs to be well targeted. It has been suggested that at least 20 per cent of aid needs to go directly on the social services of developing countries, but most countries are putting in less than 10 per cent in that area. Many countries tie their aid to reciprocal arrangements whereby that country is forced to buy goods and services from the country that is giving the aid. The United Kingdom is not an offender in that respect: all its aid is untied; but Italy, for example, has 92 per cent of its aid tied and a good number of other countries have 50 per cent or more.
	My next point is not directly related but still crucial. We know that in many of those countries there is endemic conflict involving arms. How do the arms get there? Do we have an effective arms treaty at the moment and effective regulation of arms brokers? I suggest that we do not and that that may be another area where the United Kingdom could use its presidency to good effect.
	I do not regard aid as anything less than a priority, but I want to spend a few minutes on trade. In an ideal world there would be no need to remit debts and to give massive amounts of aid because people would be able to trade with mutuality: mutual giving and receiving. We need to remind ourselves that the European Union is responsible for 20 per cent of the world's trade. It is the biggest importer and the second biggest exporter of agricultural goods. That is a huge share of the world's market and much of it is in relation to the developing world.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, emphasised, the common agricultural policy is a continuing scandal. There is no other word for the way in which food is dumped on other countries and agricultural products are so subsidised that other countries' economies are ruined. We all know the example of the tomato industry and rice products in Ghana. Markets and industries are decimated because of heavily subsidised goods from outside.
	The aid agencies are particularly concerned at present about the economic partnership agreements. It has been suggested that they will involve a great deal of liberalisation of trade and that 90 per cent of all trade should be fully liberalised within 10 years. Yet it is also recognised that that may not be in the best interests of the developing countries, not least because total liberalisation, particularly if conditionality of other kinds is attached to it, has been shown to be not in the best interests of those developing countries.
	I should like to spend two or three minutes of my time on the economic partnership agreements. Although the Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, has suggested that we may have to reconsider the economic partnership agreements and that there may be other ways of engaging in trade relationships, there are still a number of concerns. There are concerns about the nature of the negotiations; for example, that they are being undertaken by the department dealing with trade rather than the department dealing with development.
	It is unclear where the trade department's expertise in development comes from and whether the developmental aspects of the EPAs are receiving due scrutiny by development officials at European Union and member country level. There is an imbalance between the negotiating partners and the fact that no public reassurances have been given to the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries that rejection of the EPA proposals will not impact on future EC aid flows.
	There is a lack of any specific clearly defined alternatives to the economic partnership agreements despite the commitment to offer such alternatives; and the Commission is unwilling to provide well-defined alternatives in the immediate future. So there are concerns about the negotiations. There are also concerns about the content of the proposals.
	First, there is the presence of the so-called Singapore issues—trade facilitation; competition; investment; and government procurement—in the EPA negotiations despite their having been rejected at Cancun in the WTO negotiations and the extension of the proposals beyond the terms rejected at the WTO.
	Secondly, there is the demand for reciprocity: the opening of ACP markets to EU goods in exchange for the opening of the EU market. As I have indicated, there is a great deal of concern that the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries will be compelled to liberalise their markets leaving them open to floods of EU goods with which they cannot hope to compete.
	Thirdly, there is the inability of the poor countries to offset the loss of tariff revenues that result from the lowering of the tariffs. There are issues of debt and aid, but I have focused on trade and trade justice: making trade work for the poor; giving poor farmers in developing countries a chance to trade their way out of poverty by immediately eliminating all EU export subsidies; significantly reducing trade distorting subsidies; supporting the right of developing countries to protect their sensitive agricultural sectors; and ensuring that market access concessions work in favour of the poor.
	Finally, the EU should stop pursuing potentially damaging economic partnership agreements in their current form with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. They need changing in order that the needs of those countries can be taken into account. I believe that the presidency of the European Union at this time offers a huge opportunity for the commitment and enthusiasm in this area shared by so many in this country to be shared also with other countries in the European Union.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I too would like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for his initiative in giving us this opportunity to debate the forthcoming British presidency this afternoon.
	Although I am not going to talk about development, I particularly appreciated the contribution of the right reverend Prelate. It reminded me that when I left the Ministry of Overseas Development where I was a junior Minister in 1979 we were closer to achieving our 0.7 per cent target than we are today. I have to say—not being too party political—that we went a long way down during the previous administration and we are working our way back up, but it shows how seriously we have been remiss as regards an obligation that we accepted so many years ago.
	The presidency, which we will occupy the second half of this year, is important. One of the things that we have to avoid is creating too high an expectation of what can be achieved by our leadership in six months. All political leaders make the mistake, which we have to resist during our presidency, of claiming that they can do so much by leading from the front and being at the heart of Europe.
	The pattern for the presidency is already set and fixed. We have only to read paragraph 2 of the February 2005 White Paper to see how precisely it is fixed in the form of an increasingly rolling multi-annual programme. So let us not hear too much from the Government about leading Europe; perhaps a little more about collegiality and the importance of working together.
	That does not mean that the Government should not have clear aims and objectives of things that they want to do. The major aims and themes for the presidency will include issues, such as security, prosperity and sustainability. From that important agenda, if we are to do anything by way of leadership, we need to create the domestic climate in which we can persuade the British people to face up to two decisions that they will be obligated to make—one perhaps a little more closely than the other.
	We will have to face the imperative of making a decision in a referendum on the constitutional treaty and, at some other stage, a decision in a referendum on our membership of the euro. Based on the common agenda that we have with our European partners in relation to security, prosperity and sustainability, we should use that as the springboard for domestic political activity to persuade the electorate to the right frame of mind in which they can meaningfully participate in those referenda.
	First, as regards the referendum on the constitutional treaty, we must show that this is a fairly limiting treaty. It is a defining treaty that is based on a concept of conferred competences. We have to show that we have a European Union that does not have any autonomous competence of its own. It only has competence in so far as the sovereign decision of sovereign member states has transferred that competence to the union. Any competence not so transferred remains with the nation state. So we have a constitutional treaty which demonstrates that and defines what we should do together, but, at the same time, underpins the role of the national state and enhances the role of national parliaments by, for example, the proposals that are made in relation to subsidiarity.
	Therefore, during our presidency, we must use the opportunity to show that there is no greatly increased power to the centre and that the Tory argument about "a state called Europe" is not merely wrong, but is conceptually nonsensical. I hope that during the British presidency we will find some dormant, no longer useful or relevant directive and get it repealed. That would have enormous symbolic significance. There must be something in the 80,000 page acquis communautaire that is no longer of use to man or beast: get rid of one and that will be a major British achievement in the presidency, which shows that not all decisions permanently reside there.
	Secondly, as I said, shortly after, at some time, we will have to face the matter of a euro referendum. Let us not forget that the Government are committed in principle to join a successful single currency. It is subject only to those economic tests. We have got, I believe, only a subjective decision to get over. But, without prejudice to the economic tests, during our presidency the Government must start more urgently, more systematically and more directly to spell out the benefits of euro membership.
	We all know the arguments. We have been over them so many times before: for example, reduced transactional costs in circumstances where more than 55 per cent of our exports go to the European Union; greater certainty about export contract pricing; and more transparency concerning transnational comparisons of price. All of those things have to be spelt out, and the presidency gives us the platform to do that domestically. Forget about taking the lead in Europe: take the lead of the argument at home. Then there is the opportunity to win two referenda.
	The presidency will require us to do other things, of course. One of the items on the agenda is future enlargements, including Romania and Bulgaria in the relatively short term; Turkey, a bit further down the line; and others further downstream—former Yugoslavia and even the Ukraine. People have aspirations. Future enlargements will be on our political agenda during the British presidency, not for determination but for discussion.
	I make a special plea that during our presidency we should be particularly concerned about external borders and their security. I am one of the few freaks in the Labour Party—I say to the Minister—who walks around with a pledge card in his pocket. My pledge card for the next election says, "Your country's borders protected". But I say to my noble friend that you cannot do that unless you have secured the external borders of the European Union.
	When we have an enlargement agenda that could wind up with us having common borders with Syria, Iran, Iraq, Belarus and Russia, we have to be a little bit more serious in some of the work that we do on securing external borders than perhaps we have been in the past. I say that particularly in the context of the debate that we have had during the past couple of days. Security on our external borders is imperative, not only for tax and economic security, not only for illegal immigration, including people trafficking, but also for arms and drugs trafficking and their relationship to terrorism.
	My final point relates to a major internal issue—finance—which will be seriously on the agenda. We will have to get to grips, because it will not happen under the Luxembourg presidency, with the next financial perspective for the years 2007-2013. The Commission ambition is for a perspective based on 1.26 per cent of Community gross national income. We, together with Germany, France, the Netherlands, Austria and Sweden, are convinced about the merits of the argument for a 1 per cent of EU gross national income.
	In the context of that, there will also have to be an own-resources decision. The Commission has quite clear proposals for a medium-term European Union tax. To my noble friend, I say that I hope we have his clear assurance that that will be resisted. Such a tax, as all own-resources decisions, will require unanimity. We expect a budget based on 1 per cent. Anything else needs to be resisted.
	Horse trading based on the idea of surrender of the United Kingdom rebate in whole or in part should also be resisted. That is not because we want anything, or everything, for ourselves, but because there is a better way of getting rid of the British rebate; namely, get rid of the maldistribution of resources from the common agricultural policy. Mathematically, the need for a rebate then works itself out of the system.
	I give my noble friend a challenging agenda where we can be at the heart of decision making, but leading the British people to circumstances in which we can get a majority in the necessary referenda.

Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, we have been much entertained by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson. Of course, I agree with him very much on his final remarks and will come back to that. I am peculiarly and particularly pleased to speak in a debate introduced by my noble friend Lord Dykes. Aeons ago, even before sunset, I was, for about a decade, the Liberal Party spokesman on Europe in the other place. We had endless debates—I remember Maastricht, that merry occasion—and I made endless speeches. Usually, facing me, smiling beatifically, was the face of the good Lord Dykes who, at that time, was misplaced within the Conservative Party. He has now seen the light—the sunrise—and he is clearly a happier person. It was awfully interesting when I used to make pro-European comments, which I did frequently, and he would smile or nod. Immediately the people all round him would glare blackly at him. I felt that he was almost certainly due for a row from the Whips when the debate was over.
	I am a completely unrepentant federalist. I know that the F-word is banned—even within the Liberal Democrats these days. I was a federalist not only before the United Kingdom accession in 1973, but prior to 1957 and the Treaty of Rome. I was never affected by the strange view of the Thatcher and Major years that somehow federalism was a centralising concept—it never was and never has been. That is why successive British governments introduced federal systems into their colonies as they shed them—and into Germany, for that matter. So the dream of an economically and politically united Europe, which continued to rejoice in its cultural and linguistic diversity, and which inspired me in the 1950s, still holds me in thrall. As somebody said, "If you don't have ideals you will never achieve anything".
	There are five issues that I wish to touch on briefly. First, I refer to the constitution. We owe both the noble Lords, Lord Tomlinson and Lord Maclennan, a great debt. The Eurosceptics appear to have fled the battlefield. I know them fairly well; I know the sound of their voices.

Lord Stevens of Ludgate: I am here, my Lords.

Lord Russell-Johnston: Fear not, my friend.
	The constitution is portrayed by the sceptics as a great threat to our national independence. As the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, rightly said, that is rubbish. From a federal point of view, I could say that the constitution is timid, hyper-cautious and not forward looking, but, as a threat to the nation state, it is about as threatening as a mouse in the Albert Hall. That is nonsense.
	One of its other shortcomings—I could develop the point considerably, but I shall not—is the failure to deal with the issue of devolution. As we are slowly knitting together in Europe, the individual nation states are devolving at the same time. Within the United Kingdom, we have devolved to Wales and Scotland, and efforts are being made to find something suitable within England. The same is happening in France and Italy. Germany already has a federal system. There is no developed way of responding to that at a European level.
	My second point refers to the rebate. I agree again with the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, that it has to do with the CAP. We should remember that Mrs Thatcher got the rebate because our colleagues in the European Union accepted that the working out of the CAP meant that we were unfairly treated financially. In approaching the matter now, the Government should not argue on defending a British advantage, but on what is a fair way of doing things. We are now a bigger European Union, with a number of countries that are poorer than us having joined. They deserve the solidarity of European Union support.
	Thirdly, I refer to human rights. The European Union's most important exports to the world are human rights and the setting of democratic standards. I ask that the Government oppose completely the sale of arms to China. The huge vote against such a proposal in the European Parliament towards the end of last year cannot and should not be ignored. It is not simply because Tiananmen Square was a long time ago, or even that not very much contrition has ever been shown for what happened then; it is the present situation of Taiwan, which mainland China continually threatens, and which is developing democracy in a way that we should admire.
	We should also be quite direct with Russia. A couple of days ago, Aslan Maskhadov was shot and killed. When I was president of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe, I spoke to him a couple of times. I was always persuaded that he was a separatist leader, not a terrorist in the sense of targeting civilians, such as Basayev, for example. After all, one remembers the Russian's promise to work for a peaceful solution when joining the Council of Europe, which it promptly broke.
	I have two final points. First, the WEU is being knitted into the European Union, and that process is taking a little while. In particular, there is the question of how national Parliaments, such as ours, will have the continued opportunity to comment directly on defence matters that are decided at the European level. Again, that decision process is slow.
	The simplest way would be to make the existing Western European Union Assembly a European Union institution. That would be a simple and pragmatic way of enabling national Parliaments to continue to give advice—after all, it is only an advisory assembly. I do not say "only" pejoratively. It is important to maintain that conduit.
	Finally, there is a continued and ongoing dispute that the extension of the European Union threatens the existence of the Council of Europe. I do not think that it should do so. The two each have a place well into the future, and the Government should make it clear when they take over the chairmanship of the European Union that they do not wish the removal of the Council of Europe. Its work in democracy building—especially in the countries outside the European Union, but not exclusively so—remains of the greatest importance.

Lord Stevens of Ludgate: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for calling attention to the United Kingdom presidency of the Council of the European Union.
	I feel somewhat isolated but undeterred in my views. Shortly following the presidency, we shall have in 2006 the referendum on the EU constitution. One hopes, therefore, that the UK presidency will seek to clarify a number of issues so that the electorate can have a clearer idea what they are voting about, in view of the conflicting opinions of European leaders.
	I note that the Prime Minister's colleague in the other place, who is in charge of the negotiations, considers the constitution to be a tidying-up exercise. Others may differ from that definition. I see no point in contesting the definition, but let us consider what is being tidied up.
	Jean-Luc Dehaene, vice-chairman of the convention which drew up the document, in June 2004, said that,
	"the Maastricht treaty with its social laws and single currency had delivered a socio-economic Europe"—
	whatever that is—
	"in the early 1990s, now the constitution was delivering a political Europe which would need to be further thrashed out in the years ahead".
	Our Prime Minister stated that the text agreed in Brussels demolished myths about Britain surrendering authority to a federal super state. It will have its own full-time President, Foreign Minister, diplomatic service; its own anthem, flag and Europe day.
	Germany's Minister for Europe said last week,
	"the constitution is, in spite of all justified calls for further regulations, a milestone. Yes it is more than that. The EU constitution is the birth certificate of the United States of Europe".
	The Spanish Foreign Minister said:
	"We are witnessing the last remnants of national politics. We must now give up sovereignty in the dual areas of foreign affairs and defence".
	The Spanish Prime Minister stated last week that the EU constitution would create a diplomatic service for the EU which would eventually replace national embassies. This is tidying up, according to our Government.
	The Prime Minister's former Europe adviser, Mr Liddle—now adviser to the European Commissioner, Mr Mandelson—said:
	"the constitutional treaty enshrines the transformation of Europe from a single market to a political union".
	He also said this week that the Prime Minister should be more honest with voters and admit that Britain was handing more and more power to Brussels and that the constitution was a political project and not a free trade society. Mr Monnet would have been delighted with these remarks.
	Our Foreign Secretary says that the constitution marks an end of the transfer of British sovereignty to Brussels; thus far and no further. At least he admits it will and has taken place. But this, of course, ignores the general flexibility clause that allows the EU to adopt new powers not set out in the constitution at any time. There is also the power to set up a European public prosecutor.
	Our negotiators tabled 275 amendments and achieved 27 of them, but the Foreign Secretary said that we delivered on every one of our red lines. I assume these were not red lines. However, we lost out, for example, on the creation of a European mutual defence pact and a common asylum and immigration system.
	The new constitution gives more power to the European Parliament and a say over the €100 billion budget—if that is indeed the budget—but it does not identify any powers that might be returned to national governments, even though the European convention was specifically asked to do so.
	However, for the first time, a European treaty gives any member the right to withdraw from the European Union. This implies that the Union is a voluntary association of nation states. Also, if the EU as a whole cannot agree to do something, one-third or more of the member states can agree to do it on their own. National parliaments can vote down new proposals from the Commission if they think that it can be done better at a national level. If one-third reject, Brussels has to review the proposal. This, however, is valueless as Brussels can still go ahead if it wants to.
	The Prime Minister may boast that he has protected his lines on tax, defence and foreign policy, but we seem to have given way on practically everything else. Small wonder when you consider the views of other European leaders, which I have expressed.
	On the "Today" programme on 19 January 2005, at 7.14 a.m.—I was actually up and I heard it—the Prime Minister said:
	"Europe remains a nation".
	He then corrected it to,
	"Europe remains a union of nation states".
	His actual words were:
	"Europe remains a nation—uh, uh—a union of nation states".
	This sums it up. This is really more than a tidying-up exercise, but even the Prime Minister does not want to admit it.
	The White Paper issued in February 2005 touches on many aspects of the EU and contains some statistical information. It refers to applying the union rules effectively across the enlarged union—but what about the un-enlarged union? It states that the UK has complied with 70 per cent of the Lisbon directives, which is above the EU average of 58 per cent.
	Mr Wim Kok, the Dutch former Prime Minister, has said that urgent and serious action needs to be taken to meet the Lisbon targets. The stability and growth pact is more noted for its breaches than its compliance. We are to have an integrated life-long learning programme within the EU when in this country we cannot even agree on our domestic schools' examination schedule. We are to have even more legislation on gender equality and equal treatment. The list goes on.
	Much more emphasis should be placed during our presidency on what the member countries are expecting from the new constitution and on clarifying what their expectations and objectives are. They appear to be diametrically opposed to what our leading politicians seem to be telling us, sadly not for the first time. The objective of the founders of the EU was always political and economic unification. We need to recognise and admit that, unless we tackle this desire now, that is where we will end up. The Prime Minister should clarify the position during his presidency. Health and safety is yet another area where our negotiators agreed and then discovered that it invades every area of our lives.
	I very much hope that many of those in favour of even more political, social and economic integration in the EU, and those against, will be able to raise the level of the debate in the coming months from insults and generalisations to something more carefully thought through and presented. To describe Euro-sceptics as xenophobes, as the Trade Minister did last week, does not get us very far. We, like Mr Liddle, are seekers after the truth, and our presidency should be used to clarify these issues.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, shall I rise to the bait? I think my noble friends would be disappointed if I did not say, "Yes".
	Europe is the league we are in. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Ludgate, is still with us in spirit, but perhaps I may respond to what he has said. The noble Lord did not address the fact—he may not have noticed—that the European Union is a great magnet for attracting countries that wish to join. As Chelsea proved last night, the league we are in is one in which we can win. That is obvious at the level of the demotic, but it is not yet obvious at the level of the political.
	The noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Ludgate, also did not address the question of why it would be dangerous for Britain to be isolated. It seemed to me that the noble Lord's speech added up to saying, "Stop the world, I want to get off". It is blindingly obvious that a policy of, "Fight them on the beaches and fight them in the hills" will not get Britain anywhere.
	The six-month presidency will be suspended if the treaty is ratified, but we hold it for the moment and it is a golden opportunity—the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, made this point—for us to ask basic questions and to have them answered in a language that everyone can understand. We should not rely on focus groups, which are a contradiction in terms. All that focus groups do is prove that there is 99 per cent ignorance and then ask the people—as if they were as wise as Aristotle, Plato and every philosopher in Greece and Rome put together—to provide a strategy on international development. Clearly that is a contradiction in terms. We have to show leadership and explain at the same time.
	Where do we want Europe to position itself in the world? Should we not try to get away, do we not want to get away, does the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, not want to get away from the American coalition of the willing? If we do want to get away from that, what do we do? A new chapter opened up a couple of weeks ago when President Bush went to Brussels—he did not come to London this time—and said that he supported European unity in being a great strength for stability and progress in the world. That does not come naturally to someone from Texas. We hope that the penny has dropped in Washington. Even the US can feel isolated. That is a negative perspective. But we have to pursue positive aspirations for democracy and other desiderata—and development—together, as the right reverend Prelate emphasised.
	I would like to give another example of how Euro-sceptics—and let us call them by their proper name, Europhobes—miss the way the world is going. Let us take the enormously important development of negotiations through the EU big three on Iran's attempt to build on its nuclear power programme and weapons-grade materials. That is contrary to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
	The stuff that history is made of has occurred in the past six months. History does not necessarily come in the most obvious, overt big jumps. It comes through Jack Straw, M. de Villepin and Joschka Fischer saying that we ought to lead the negotiation with Iran together. Last November they started systematic reporting to the Council of Ministers for the first time. It is very important that an agreement is reached. If it fails and we go down the Security Council road, we will end up with somebody bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. That could be even more dangerous than Iraq. The EU is now taking the lead on that matter. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Ludgate, does not want the EU to do that, but it an important thing to do in the world at the present time.
	Everybody is confused and schizophrenic about the development of common foreign and security policy. People are schizophrenic because they do not know that unanimity means unanimity. It means that you can anything as long as you agree to do it and you cannot do anything unless everybody agrees that you do it. That is relatively simple but it causes a lot of people a lot of confusion on whether we have a European foreign policy, a European diplomatic service, a European this, that or the other. There is no reason why we cannot develop in that direction if we do it together with unanimity. That is the agenda in the treaty.
	After the election, on all these matters the Government should throw caution to the winds. If we work on the assumption that a Labour Government will be returned—and most people do so, including most of the people on the Conservative Benches—we have to throw caution to the winds and start to raise our game in explaining what we are doing from the appropriate date in May.
	I would like to pick up on the financial position and the issue of the rebate. I welcome the report of EU Sub-Committee A. The chairman of the European Select Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, is going to make a contribution in a few minutes. I welcome the suggestion that there is a trade-off between the cost of the common agricultural policy and our rebate.
	My noble friend Lord Tomlinson does not like the idea of horse trading, so I will not call it that. It does not make much difference what we call it—as Shakespeare said,
	"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet".
	If we think back to The Hague in 1969, there has been a direct connection between the way in which Customs duties and the financing of the agricultural policy works with our trade pattern relative to the French. That has always been the implicit trade-off that some time had to be addressed head on—and we do address it head on.
	I am not sure that we can stick to figure of 1.00 per cent. A figure nearer to 1.14 per cent will come out of the negotiations because we have to go with a lot of the aspirations of the EU on development policy. Many of those proposals are predicated on the figure of 1.14 per cent. This is a negotiation, but we have to get real on it very quickly after 1 June.
	I am attracted by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, about repealing something. It would be nice if there were a "bent banana" directive because then we could repeal it. If we start a competition, I am sure that we will find something similar but I have not yet been able to identify it.
	When people start to address the problems of the detail of so-called redundant directives they do not get very far because the acquis communautaire has, in general, stood the test of time. In the field of employment law, the quality of contracts of employment for everybody in this country—be it in transfers of undertakings, equality of opportunity, migrant workers, information consultation—has passed the test of time.
	I have given the Minister notice of this point. If the services directive goes ahead, it must be accompanied in the Warwick agreement by the Temporary Agency Directive. We must reassure people that the freedom to operate services is not incompatible but goes side-by-side with protecting people working on sub-contracts. That is an important part of the agenda for the next six months.

Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, I would like to join in congratulating my noble friend Lord Dykes on securing this debate. I have known him since Cambridge. His record as a consistent, comprehensive and enthusiastic advocate—indeed, champion—of European union is exemplary. At Cambridge I left the Conservative Party and joined the Liberals. It has taken him four decades to achieve the same decision, but we on these Benches congratulate him on that.
	The debate has produced some interesting contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, has introduced a new theory of conspiracy—the "uh-huh" theory. It joins a long series.
	There have been many good points. I was particularly interested to hear my noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston refer to his federalism. He made the point that federalism is normally understood to be about the devolution of power, not the concentration of power. I vividly remember being invited to address a meeting in Munich. A rather enthusiastic Bavarian came up to me afterwards and said the he found the British position of federalism very difficult to understand because he believed it to be the most important element in securing the independence of Bavaria. So federalism is understood differently in different places.
	It is in some ways slightly esoteric to discuss the UK presidency before the general election. We know that the UK will hold the presidency but we will not finally know what political personnel will hold it until the people decide. I would like to suggest three areas in which whoever happens to be there might be able to make a distinctive contribution to European thinking and planning during those six months.
	The first stems from the draft constitutional treaty. That treaty, which is long and complex, and which sometimes appears to please no one because it has not delivered the whole of the argument to any side—personally, I believe that that is one of its great virtues—enshrines the principle that, in future, national parliaments should review all Commission proposals. If one-third of them take the view that a Commission proposal, in effect, ignores or contravenes the principle of subsidiarity—some blueprint for a federal super state—then that Commission proposal falls.
	That is a significant proposal. It is a great invitation and challenge to national parliaments to become much more seriously involved in European legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has written, how we respond to that invitation will be an important test of the British instinct for democratic and parliamentary control. During the UK presidency it would be very useful to test how European national parliaments can take up that challenge.
	We have a system of reviewing European legislation in this House and in Westminster to which changes are being made. If we are to be effective in reviewing Commission proposals, there has to be a new degree of co-operation, a new level of efficiency, proficiency and speed of response in the way in which national parliaments consider such proposals. It would be very valuable if, during the presidency, the UK tested the areas of possibility. After all, one of the great reputations that we have within the European Union and one of the reasons that people like Monnet so welcomed British membership is that it is believed that we will add a new dimension, a new toughness, to democracy within the European Union. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether something could be done.
	There is an important additional dimension to that matter. Within a European Union of 25 countries, the review of proposed Commission directives ,and so on, takes on quite a different complexity. An obvious example could be a harmonisation proposal that affects food hygiene. What would be appropriate for Spain in the summer would not be appropriate for Finland in the winter. Therefore, a level of diversity and complexity has to come in to national parliament's review of Commission proposals. The constitution hands national parliaments an initiative and a potential that they have not had before. It is very important that this country leads the way in responding to that.
	Secondly, I agree with the remarks that have been made about the US President's visit to Brussels. In some ways it was a slightly bizarre visit, but it was an important, useful and hopeful one. During the presidency, the UK could take a lead in pursuing some of the initiatives and ideas that came out of that visit on mending the transatlantic relationship. How do we move from slightly statuesque conferences, which are meant to bring together a transatlantic, US and EU perspective, to make that more of a reality?
	It is urgent that we do so, because although we were treated to the somewhat unusual spectacle of the President listening, there is a background to the situation; for example, Condoleezza Rice, before the inaugural speech of the President, listed—not in alphabetical order—six outposts of tyranny: Iran, North Korea, Burma, Cuba, Belarus and Zimbabwe. During his speech, President Bush quoted Abraham Lincoln:
	"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, cannot long retain it".
	On previous experience, we have an administration in the United States which might just believe that God should be given a helping hand and that there should be some facilitation, perhaps through the deployment of force in some way, in bringing in the just rule of the Almighty. Given the perilous world situation in which we live, it is critical that the transatlantic relationship is improved in quality, in detail, in speed, and in regularity.
	The final area in which I believe that the UK could make a positive difference during the presidency is, as a number of noble Lords have already pointed out, on the Lisbon agreement and its implementation. A real problem with that is that it defines almost everything as a priority. Looking at the original Lisbon agreement, one sees that priority is to be given, for example, to research and development; policies for the information society; structural reform for competitiveness and innovation; completion of the internal market; modernising of the European social model; investing in people; combating social exclusiveness; and funding the right means for the right macro-economic political mix, among other things. An old adage is that if everything is a priority, nothing is.
	One area where the United Kingdom could place great emphasis, because of its importance to this country and our track record, is on the urgent need to enhance Europe's research and development capability. The facts of the situation are that 2.67 per cent of the United States GDP is committed to research and development, whereas only 1.83 per cent of the enlarged EU's GDP is committed. That is very dangerous for Europe and for us.
	I declare an interest in that I chair the Chemistry Advisory Board at Cambridge. I noticed that the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University, Alison Richard, a very fine and outstanding vice-chancellor, responded to the president of the European Commission who was publicly bemoaning the fact that in Europe we have no MIT. She wrote a letter saying, "What about Cambridge?". That is fine, but at Cambridge we have an excellent state-of-the-art chemistry ability, which is generously privately supported, but in other universities, chemistry departments are closing. If, over the next couple of years, we do not take seriously the R&D challenge within Europe, we shall lose out significantly. I believe that that is an opportunity that will occur under the UK presidency.
	Six months is a short period of time. There is not much time. There will be a huge EU agenda to deal with and the danger is that it will submerge any sense of priority or any distinctive initiative. I would urge on the Minister and on whatever government emerges after the election that it is important that what we do during our presidency adds value, is characteristic of the best of our political and economic capability and makes a positive difference in Europe.

Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, on the very wise and timely choice of topic for this debate. I also congratulate him on his good fortune in that the subject popped out of the hat for today's debate. With the likelihood that certain political events of high importance will occur during the run up to the presidency, I can only hope that the House will not be too distracted from the serious business of monitoring closely the Government's leadership of Europe from July to December.
	I intervene as chairman of the Select Committee on the European Union to draw attention to some matters relating to the presidency, and to give the House a flavour of the kind of work that the committee is already doing in this preparatory stage. I have discussed today's debate with members of the committee and, as chairman, I will of course represent the views of the committee as best I can.
	There are two matters which I will not address. The first is the referendum on the constitution, on which I will say only that I hope that the presidency programme will help inform the referendum debate in the country, and that preoccupation with the presidency will not deflect the Government from their stated intention to set out all the facts about the constitution before the British people, a point forcefully made by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall.
	Secondly, I shall not be addressing the important question—and it is an important question—of the proposed mechanism for parliamentary monitoring of the application of the subsidiarity principle as set out in Protocol 2 to the constitution. The Select Committee is due to report to the House shortly on this initiative.
	I therefore turn to my substantive remarks. It goes without saying that all seven sub-committees of the European Union Committee will keep up their scrutiny work as usual during the presidency; and yes, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, said, it is becoming more complex in a Union of 25.
	All sub-committees have examined the Commission's annual work programme and have considered their own work programmes in the light of that. Specific questions on the programme are being put to the Commission for early answer. The Select Committee has also considered the operational programme agreed between the UK and Luxembourg, covering their two presidencies. The joined-up planning between the UK and Luxembourg in setting the two presidencies' programmes for 2005 is a welcome contribution to efficiency, but the committee has asked the Minister for Europe how this spirit of practical co-operation can be maintained as we move towards team presidencies. Given that it is envisaged that the next UK presidency will not be until 2017, it is important for us to hear from the Government that they intend to contribute fully to the policy planning process over those next 12 years.
	The committee has also noted that there are signs of a more strategic approach by the Commission and of a desire to work with the Council in forming strategic plans. We have asked the Government whether such changes will signify a change of approach over the term of the Barroso Commission compared with its predecessor.
	We have also asked Her Majesty's Government how the Commission's work programme is being prepared in co-ordination with declared presidency priorities. I was referring to the 2005 programme—the first iteration of the 2006 programme has, I understand, now appeared, without any great fanfare, on the Commission's website. It would be interesting to know what hand the UK has had in the preparation of that document, too.
	The committee has also asked the Minister for Europe how we can best begin to get an overview of plans for the UK presidency. We have invited the Minister to talk to us in general terms, well before the presidency begins, and in particular to talk through with us proposals related to the Lisbon agenda and better regulation—two highly important issues.
	In the mean time, we have read the Minister's reply to a Written Question in another place, setting out the Government's priorities for the General Affairs and External Relations Council during the presidency. Our committee is currently looking at how procedures for scrutinising CFSP matters can be made much more effective than they have so far been. So the Written Answer is of interest, but there are many other areas on which we will need information.
	The Minister for Europe and his predecessors have always made themselves available to the committee for detailed scrutiny, although diary pressures in recent months have meant that some commitments have not been met. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm today that opportunities for detailed scrutiny will continue to arise in the coming months. Personal appearances by the Minister and his colleagues are not just very valuable; they are essential and are, in my committee's view, the core of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. I quote from the committee's annual report 2004, which I commend to the House, where we indicated that,
	"the Select Committee will in particular seek an early opportunity to present the House with a ministerial overview of the Government's intentions for its Presidency".
	May I add, however, that recent proposals from the Government for enhanced provision of information to Parliament before and after Council meetings are greatly to be welcomed. The replacing of a series of ad hoc arrangements for ministerial letters and Commons answers by a robust and systematic series of Written Ministerial Statements in both Houses will both improve efficiency and allow all Members of the House to have access to better information.
	Turning to specific questions, I can inform the House that the EU Committee and its sub-committees have already raised a number of issues with the Government, with a view to informing the presidency. I do not expect the Minister to answer these today as that is a matter for the Government's responses to the relevant reports, but I hope that the House will find three examples of interest.
	First, are the Government satisfied with the content and direction of the Hague programme—the five-year EU programme of work on justice and home affairs? Which of the elements of the Hague programme will be examined as a matter of priority during the UK presidency?
	Secondly, in its recent report on EU climate change policy, the committee pressed for intra-EU aviation emissions to be incorporated into the EU emissions trading scheme as soon as possible. In response, the Government say that taking aviation into the trading scheme is a top priority of the UK presidency. We greatly welcome this, and we will watch out for concrete action.
	Thirdly, the committee's report on defence rights—procedural rights in criminal proceedings—calls on the Government to ensure that the outcome of negotiations on the framework decision is "something worthwhile" and that the proposal is not watered down. According to the Hague programme, the deadline for the adoption of the draft framework decision is the end of 2005, so this is clearly a matter for the UK presidency.
	In addition, the committee is publishing a number of reports over the next two months, some of which—for example, the report on the controversial Services Directive and the report on reforming the deeply flawed common agricultural policy—will be making further specific recommendations to the UK presidency, although I cannot, of course, leak our findings today.
	I am sure, however, that many noble Lords will have noted reports in today's papers on the future of the committee's report, published today, on the future financing of the European Union, the financial perspective for 2007-2013. Since, as the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, pointed out, negotiations on the financial perspective will spill over into the UK presidency if agreement is not reached during the current Luxembourg presidency, which is a real possibility, we hope that the Government will take good note of the conclusions and recommendations in our report.
	Turning briefly to other issues relating to the presidency, the decision on Turkish accession will be a clear priority. The Prime Minister's Statement to Parliament after the December European Council noted:
	"Turkey's performance, including in relation to respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights, will be closely monitored".
	My committee has therefore asked the Government to answer a number of questions on how that monitoring is to be handled. There have been queries about the length of time proposed for negotiations, which is significantly greater than for previous accessions. We have asked the Government what it is about Turkey that justifies, in their view, making this "a different order of accession" and whether this is to become the rule rather than the exception with future enlargements.
	Given the timing of the decision on Turkey, due on 3 October, it would be particularly helpful for the committee to know whether Her Majesty's Government will ensure that the necessary documentation will be deposited in Parliament for scrutiny before the Summer Recess. That is perhaps a matter on which the Minister could answer today.
	These same December European Council conclusions also called for EU policies "to provide added value". We have asked Her Majesty's Government to explain precisely what they see that as meaning. How does "added value" differ from respect for the principle of subsidiarity?
	I also intend to invite my committee to consider whether, in the months leading up to the presidency, we look at the whole area of better regulation. Much is spoken about this, and there seems to be a genuine willingness to improve things, but what in practice does it mean? What practical steps are being taken to deliver this, and how will their success be monitored? How will all the institutions of the European Union be effectively engaged? Commission vice-president Verheugen, who holds the competitiveness portfolio, has stated that better regulation is at the top of his list. That is good, so let us hold him to it. I hope that my committee will agree to look into these matters.
	Last for mention, but by no means least, is the role our Parliament will play in hosting inter-parliamentary events during the presidency. There are exchanges of views on European matters between national parliamentary committees in a number of fora, and the jewel in the crown is the meeting of European affairs committees—COSAC—at which more than 150 parliamentarians from the member states and the applicant countries will be getting together here in Westminster in October.
	My committee will work with our co-hosts in the other place to ensure that the meeting of COSAC which our Parliament will host here will indeed provide sensible and practical discussion for our parliamentary colleagues from all the other member states. That will make a fitting contribution to what we all hope will be an excellent presidency, marked by realism, pragmatism, and above all inspired by the art of the possible.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this has been in many ways a very odd debate. I miss the strength of the Euro-sceptics, who are so often a major part of what we have here. I am therefore extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, for his particular contribution. The sense in which we have a deep suspicion of everything that foreigners "do to Britain" is a very important part of the British debate. It has been rather underplayed today. In a week in which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has informed me that Christopher Booker wrote a very complimentary piece about me in the Sunday Telegraph, I miss their presence even more than usual.
	I also note the remarkably empty Conservative Benches. But I think that there is a different reason for that—the embarrassment of so many Conservative Members of this House at the current policy of their party on the European Union, which no doubt makes it easier for them to stay away from this as from a number of other debates.
	The development of the presidency over the past 30 years has been one of the most interesting things in the European Union. I think that my wife was the first person to write something on the development of the Council presidency, which was happily followed by a number of very enjoyable conferences in countries that were due to take the presidency in six months' time or whenever. I particularly remember a conference in Dublin just before the first Irish presidency, about which, as some noble Lords may remember, Henry Kissinger said that he could not conceive having to discuss transatlantic relations with the Irish Foreign Minister, of all people. Garrett FitzGerald then conducted an extremely successful Irish presidency and took us towards the whole development of the way in which national governments share this role.
	However, as a number of noble Lords have clearly said, the complexity of the presidency now is such that it would be entirely wrong for a national government to come in and attempt to hijack the agenda. As the noble Lords, Lord Maclennan and Lord Tomlinson, have said, it is a multi-annual programme which has to be set well in advance of each government taking over. The pattern for the second semester of 2005 is already set.
	I am slightly puzzled that Her Majesty's Government have not taken more time to have a broader consultation on what they think the priorities should be. I recollect, 18 months ago, attending two conferences in the Netherlands in the run-up to the Dutch presidency in which the Dutch Government pulled in a number of people from other countries. It happens that those conferences were about Turkish entry and transatlantic relations. I should have thought that Her Majesty's Government might have wanted to generate a sense of collective enterprise rather more actively and rather more openly than their executive dominance and secretive style allow.
	We can, however, hope that Ministers will lay particular emphasis on parts of the agenda—that they will attempt to narrow the gap between the grandiose rhetoric and the poor practical implementation which is one of the underlying weaknesses of the European Union; that they will engage in promoting a European Union-wide debate on what our shared priorities and choices should be; and that they will take this opportunity, as a number of noble Lords have said, to promote, at last, a more informed debate within the European Union.
	It has been one of the greatest disappointments, even failures, of this Labour Government that we have had no consistent or coherent British policy towards European institutions. We have had six Europe Ministers since 1997. I think that that is about as many changes as we have had in any other office. With our presidential style of government, we have a European policy when the Prime Minister is focusing on it; but, as was often said in Paris under the later years of President Mitterand, "When the President is not well, France does not have a foreign policy". I sometimes fear that, when the Prime Minister's mind is on transatlantic relations or on the Middle East, we do not have a coherent European policy.
	The position of the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office on European matters has been rather unclear. The European Secretariat in the Cabinet Office has attempted to hold things together—with some disquiet, as we have heard, since his resignation, from the former head of that secretariat, Sir Stephen Wall. The efficiency of the machine cannot compensate for the weakness of political leadership. We need a coherent British presidency and a collective presidency—the sort of thing that cabinet government, if we still had cabinet government, might be able to provide.
	French presidencies of the European Union have, sadly, been among the most disastrous, often because the President and the Prime Minister could not entirely agree, as some noble Lords will remember happened at the Nice European Council. One could make a number of British comparisons with that.
	First, we need a much more coherent domestic debate. We need Ministers from the Prime Minister downwards to explain and to educate, and to use the British presidency to do that. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, that the most important way to lead is not to talk about leading on the Continent but to lead here and to use the presidency for that, and to explain that this is a collective enterprise, not one against 24, as it used to be one against 14. It is not a zero-sum game in which the language is "Britain wins" or "Britain loses".
	As to European priorities, it seems to me that there are a number that we should ask the Government to emphasise. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, that breathing life into the role of national parliaments which is promised in the new constitutional treaty, and about which the Prime Minister used to enthuse, is a very important matter and something that we could do. The British meeting of COSAC could become an opportunity for that.
	A number of us here are veterans of COSAC meetings. We bear the scars, have enjoyed the food and have been bored out of our minds by the poor content of the consultations. I am told by some that the meetings are getting a little bit better and a little bit more constructive. However, Her Majesty's Government could come forward to this Parliament with proposals on how we should be more actively and collectively engaged in the process of following European developments. Perhaps the Prime Minister or others could also address other parliaments about how the strengthened role of national parliaments could be developed.
	A number of Members have talked about the Lisbon agenda. I regret that our Chancellor so often talks about America as the land of enterprise and the Continent as offering security. The Lisbon agenda, after all, is about striking the right balance between enterprise and welfare—between enterprise and happiness, as the noble Lord, Lord Layard, so often puts it—in which the American model is not the complete answer. But we have to find ways of making Europe and the European continent rather more open to competition. I hope that the Government will not shrink from robust criticism of the failings of others in this regard, in particular of the German Government, the Italians, the Greeks and the French.
	I strongly support again what the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said about pushing for aviation taxes. My party is particularly convinced of the need for common policies on environmental matters. That clearly is something which we cannot do on our own as a national policy. I also strongly agree with him on the importance of taking further the five-year Hague programme. I think that there must be a couple of dozen of us who know what the five-year Hague programme is about. There is a good deal of room for public education on why anti-terrorism, trans-national crime, drug smuggling and people smuggling require more effective common European action in Britain's national interests.
	Above all, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will stress the importance of external relations and a common foreign policy as a higher priority for Europe. This has been the area where, most of all, there has been a gap between grandiloquent rhetoric and poor implementation and where our Prime Minister's major speeches on foreign policy have either been in Britain or in the United States rather than on the European continent. There is a great deal to do: our relations with Russia, redefining the relationship with the US, breathing new life into the Barcelona process, talking about democracy promotion and, as the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Oxford said, making a more coherent approach to the developed world than we get from one bit of the Commission negotiating one set of issues and others negotiating others.
	Most of all, however, we should not oversell the British role or British singularity. European integration is a partnership based on shared interests. The British presidency should reflect that rather than the outdated English rhetoric of "us versus them".

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for introducing this important debate today. It is always a privilege to contribute to these impressive debates. I feel very humble replying from these Benches after a list of many well-informed and distinguished speakers, with understandably strong feelings and strongly held opinions, as we heard in the detailed speech of my noble friend Lord Stevens regarding the constitution, which I shall not touch on today.
	With the parallel presidency of both the European Union and the G8 falling to the UK, 2005 offers us a unique opportunity to drive forward the reforms in both institutions that are vital if those institutions are successfully to adapt to the changing geopolitical climate, the demands of the 21st century and the consequences of enlargement. I am sorry that so many noble Lords on the Benches opposite seem to think the Government will not be able to achieve much during the British presidency. I well remember a successful presidency under Prime Minister John Major and the Conservatives.
	The Government seem to have failed to recognise the challenges that face the European Union.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I will be very quick. The noble Baroness refers to the successful presidency under John Major. Was that not the Edinburgh summit, when the British Government conceded that not only should the European Parliament meet in Brussels, but Strasbourg should also be kept going, which is one of the biggest waste factors we have seen?

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I would love to debate that further, as I feel quite strongly about it, but this is not the time. What a shame. Another time.
	The European Union has instead attempted to centralise more, to forge Europe into a new bloc, when the era of blocs may well be over. Regrettably, this has continued to make the EU even more remote from the citizens of its member states. I shall return to this later. The priorities set out at Laeken have yet to be seriously addressed, and the Lisbon agenda, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, central to the future economic direction of the EU, has been half-heartedly and haphazardly pursued and implemented.
	It is worth remembering what the citizens of member states expect from the EU, and what it exists to do. It was never meant to interfere in the day-to-day lives of citizens. The founders' aims were to create stability and security in Europe, and to generate the economic prosperity for member states and their citizens. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, drew the House's attention to the fact that the EU has been successful in helping to create political stability within Europe. It has also broadened the base of prosperity to levels unknown within Europe in previous centuries.
	We should not forget the fact that many new members have recently joined, and that others in Europe are aspirant members. This is surely a testament to the European Union's success, and, consequently, the appeal of membership. The prospect of joining has proved an important spur to major reforms in many countries. Bulgaria, for example, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, is well along the road to membership, while Turkey has made impressive reformist strides. If she holds firm to the course she has set and retains the secularism, particularly in education, that is at the heart of her constitution, we look forward to welcoming Turkey into the EU in the future, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell
	However, while successful in securing a stable and secure continent, the EU has, regrettably, proved less successful at creating a competitive economy, able to compete in today's tough global economic environment. Enlargement has been successful, and is very important, but it has also served to bring into sharp relief the economic and structural challenges facing the EU today—challenges we will have to address during the British presidency.
	We have long argued that one of the key ways in which the EU can be made more relevant to people is more clearly to deliver economic benefits. Europe remains far too reliant upon an expensive, high-tax, high-regulation, outdated social model, which, in an age of tough global competition, is quite simply holding Europe back. Every day additional regulations flow from Council meetings in Brussels. More often than not, they tend to strangle business and our ability to be globally competitive.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, with her critique of the European social model, could the noble Baroness remind the House whether it is the euro area that has devalued by 20 per cent in the last year, or the dollar?

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I was talking about regulations, not currencies. That is a different argument, like the one I will have later with the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson.
	It cannot be disputed that the pursuit of common-sense reform designed to promote deregulation is an urgent priority if the EU is to meet today's challenges. I beg to differ here with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, on one point in her very good speech. We were always brought up on mutual recognition rather than straight harmonisation for success in the market. I would add to this list the need for the growth and stability pact to be adhered to by all its member countries, large and small alike, if it is to mean anything.
	Enlargement continues to place strains upon the EU's finances, largely due to the workings of the structural and regional funds distribution system, the common agricultural policy and the failure to achieve long-term reform. Is it not time the Government realised that what we have been saying for so long is correct? This could be our moment, while holding the presidency, to revisit and radically reform the basis of the EU finance as well as the CAP, as mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford in his wide-ranging speech that also covered aid, trade and, importantly, trade justice.
	I wonder whether, at this late stage, I might add a small idea arising from our recent debates in this House regarding the Immunities and Privileges Bill—soon to be debated in the other place—especially as the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, was so helpful during the Bill's passage. This was mentioned too by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. Our debates stressed the need to support the necessary reforms so that this outdated treaty, drawn up in the 1960s in a different geopolitical climate, should be placed on the agenda for discussion for reform during our presidency.
	I support the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, in drawing attention to the election in Togo, and the plight of the brave and remarkable man, Gill Olympio. In Europe, we find ourselves and our continent at a crossroads. With the presidency of the European Union, the United Kingdom has a unique opportunity to shape its future direction and drive forward reform. The only way in which that can be achieved is by distributing serious information and involving as many people from as many walks of life as possible.
	This reminds me of an old Chinese proverb, which goes, "Tell me and I'll forget, show me and I may remember, involve me and I'll understand". We hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House that this Government will ensure that 2005 is the year of genuine understanding and EU reform, thus creating a successful partnership for the 21st century.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for introducing the debate, and all other noble Lords who have taken part tonight. Almost all of them have very distinguished records in their roles in Europe and many, like the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, have had major honours awarded in Europe. I am also grateful for the occasional Chinese proverb to set me on my way in the course of an evening.
	I am delighted that the United Kingdom will assume the presidency on 1 July. It will be the first time that we take the lead in an EU of 25 member states, following the welcome accession of the 10 new countries last year. As all noble Lords have made clear, there will be a lot of business for the United Kingdom to take forward with our new and old partners. I hope that I shall address some of the crucial points and do not miss too many of them.
	The Government will look to deliver progress right across the EU agenda by running an effective, impartial and business-like presidency. We are working closely with Luxembourg, as the current presidency—and I share the congratulations of the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, on what Luxembourg has done—and with Austria, who will take on the presidency after us. I guess that Austria will be up for it again in 2018, if I have my sums right. We want to ensure continuity.
	The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, is certainly right in recognising the scope and scale of what we may need to do and the need, too, to be serious and modest about the amount that we can do—not because we lack ambition but because six months is a short time and some pretty big things must be done. We shall focus first and foremost on the EU agenda that we inherit from the Luxembourg presidency, including the negotiation for the next EU financial framework, if necessary. We have played a key part in shaping the agenda and it is positive for the United Kingdom. The EU is moving in the right direction, delivering on the issues that matter to people: jobs, security, and promoting peace and prosperity globally, as well as at home.
	At this point, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, for the work of his committee, which he introduced with objectivity and to the great benefit of your Lordships' House. He is right to say that the long-term strategic thinking that he demands is essential, and I have no doubt that we shall want to do much more on that. I confirm here tonight that opportunities for detailed scrutiny will be available, and his detailed questions will be answered so that the committee's work can proceed in timely manner. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, was keen that that should be the case, as she was in saying that the presidency should take forward and promote, as the EU has always intended, security, stability and sustainable prosperity.
	The Prime Minister is also committed to using the opportunity offered by our twin presidencies of the EU and the G8 group of industrialised nations to make real progress to address the real-life concerns of poverty in Africa and environmental concerns for us all, such as climate change. Addressing climate change will have an impact on all of us far beyond the boundaries of the EU. As our understanding of the issue changes, we will want to ensure that we will be dealing with it with our partners.
	The Commission for Africa will report in a few days. We expect it to put forward a comprehensive and challenging set of proposals, driven by the needs and plans of African governments and people themselves. It should give us a chance to put Africa back at the top of the international agenda. Our presidency will be an opportunity for us to take the lead on an EU agenda that reflects the interests of the United Kingdom and the future of all EU citizens. The EU's economic reform programme is designed to create jobs here and throughout the EU, which is always the best form of social protection and the best way to lift people out of poverty. A number of noble Lords, such as the noble Lords, Lord Tomlinson and Lord Wallace, and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, have made points about the importance of doing that work publicly.
	I also want to tell my noble friend Lady Royall that we shall of course be supportive of the constitution and shall want to ensure that it is discussed fully during the period of our presidency. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is leading a programme of activities on the EU and facts about the constitutional committee, which is managed in-house with support from external agencies. The new constitution and the new Commission itself have to recognise that there is a great distance between the EU and its peoples. We need to overcome that to achieve far greater levels of understanding.
	It is at this point that I must confess that I cannot agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said about these matters, which will not surprise him. I do not believe that we are seeing the birth certificate of the United States of Europe. We control our own borders and our economy, security and foreign policy. As on other occasions, I can tell the House that when we can work together with everyone else, it would be foolish not to do so. But when our interests are absolutely distinctive, our path will be our path. We should not, then, have a catalogue of fear in that regard; it would be a great pity if we were to do so.
	Throughout our presidency we shall work closely with the Commission, the European Parliament and our EU partners. I hope that through holding the presidency we shall be able better to explain these institutions, as I have said. Few people know about the powers of the newly democratically elected European Parliament. Now that we have a new Commission under Jose Manuel Barroso, which has set out its programme for the next few years, underlining its main priority in terms of economic reform, we have the best chance to advance that case.
	If our presidency can dispel the idea that it is Brussels that tells us what to do, as if we did not have a hand in decision-making and were not in any way party to it, that will be a very welcome development. I hope that our presidency will demonstrate the breadth and depth of our interdependence with the rest of the EU and the practical benefits brought about by membership. The EU is already a big part of our lives, delivering day-to-day benefits to United Kingdom consumers, be it through cheaper phone calls, lower air fares or cleaner beaches, or many issues of security in the world. It is in many parts of our lives. Whether in agricultural or other respects, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, the EU will have to take into account the diversity in those respects and therefore have a fine-grained approach as well.
	Reducing the barriers to trade and free movement within the Union has been the EU's greatest single driver of economic growth, job creation and productivity. But barriers remain to the free movement of workers, goods, capital and especially services in some areas. It is therefore important for us to push harder for real delivery on economic and regulatory reform. As president of the European Council we shall take that work forward. We welcome the report published by the Commission on 2 February which demonstrated the new Commission's commitment to delivering growth and jobs for EU citizens. As I have said, jobs are the best form of social protection. My noble friend Lady Royall made exactly the same point. In that light, it is right to say that we would not accept the imposition of any single tax, and I can tell the House that we would not accept the imposition of what we would regard as an unacceptable budget—that is, above 1 per cent, including our abatement. I add that in case there are any doubts about the matter.
	We shall work to ensure that before legislation is proposed the EU has made a full assessment of its impact on business and international competitiveness, and that those impact assessments are then acted upon to reduce the burdens on business. We shall want to continue the work of the Commission to identify legislation ripe for repeal or simplification. My noble friend Lord Tomlinson will probably get his wish. No regulation is ever written in indelible ink. Something is always possible. Growth and stability are among the areas where it is always worth ensuring that we stick to the rules and do not vary them, as the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, said. But no regulation is ever beyond further scrutiny. I welcome the promise made by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, on further scrutiny of the regulatory matters, too.
	We want to build on the work done by the Dutch and Luxembourg presidencies on the services directive. The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, asked me to confirm that we were still working on it, which is the case. The proposal aims to open up trade in services across the EU. Services account for an estimated 70 per cent of GDP of the EU, but only 20 per cent of intra-EU trade. By extending the external market to services, we hope that the measure will have far greater and lasting effect. We want to ensure that the remaining dossiers in the financial services action plan are adopted efficiently in a form that protects and promotes the competitiveness in financial services of the UK and the EU; again, the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, made that point.
	We will take forward the debate on post-FSAP agendas, with a focus on implementation and effectiveness in existing legislation, and in line with the views of the major stakeholders. We will work with the Commission to ensure that legislative proposals are brought forward once they fully meet better regulation tests. I agree with my noble friend Lady Royall that more consistency across those tests would be helpful.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and others mentioned reform of the CAP. There is obviously general support for greater reform and greater movement. During the presidency, the EU sugar regime is the next element in the ongoing process of radical reform. It is likely to fall within our presidency to complete its reform. We want to achieve consensus among partners that sees a reduction in the price of sugar for consumers and manufacturers, and a consensus on the market-based liberalising reform in line with the changes already agreed.
	I entirely understand the right reverend Prelate's points about free trade in that area, as in many others. It is clear that the whole process of economic partnerships and liberalisation, driven by the WTO as much as anything else, will be asymmetric. Time frames will be needed to make sure that people can adjust in a way that is practical and realistic, given the circumstances from which they start. However, it would be hard to say that the process as a whole is unlikely to go ahead or would not involve reciprocity. No partnership is mandatory. I have no doubt that bilateral arrangements will continue to exist, in ways that I hope are favourable.
	The Doha development agenda will also be a major reason for a ministerial trade meeting in Hong Kong, in which we will take a full part. I do not want to add greatly to what I have already said on Africa, but we have made it clear that it is a priority for us in the EU and the G8. The Commission for Africa, in its report on Monday, will want to take forward the recommendations of our EU partners on aid, trade and peacekeeping.
	In the area of development, which is so important to this House, we will represent the EU through the Prime Minister at the UN millennium summit in September. The EU is the largest world provider of development assistance. We will continue to work with our European partners to ensure that the EU provides the leadership and the quantity and quality of aid needed to tackle global poverty, and to achieve the millennium development goals.
	The whole issue of the environment and sustainable development—also mentioned by the right reverend Prelate to great effect—will be essential to the meetings that we hold during the presidency, aiming for political agreement across the whole agenda, including on the vital new chemicals strategy. In the course of that, I cannot believe that we would do other than urge on other nations in the EU—as on nations throughout the world—the same approach to debt in relation to the poorest countries.
	I will not dwell extensively on climate change, because we have said repeatedly in this House that it will be a major focus of our presidency, and of the presidency of the G8. I shall add one thought in response to questions that have arisen this evening. It is obviously important to develop the work that we have done through the Kyoto process, but it is also true that a key nation with which we have a close relationship—the United States—is not party to it. In those circumstances, we must do all that we can to ensure consistent discussion with the United States, looking for a new approach across the problems. That issue cannot and will not go away.
	The relationship with the United States was raised by many speakers, including the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Dykes. It is very important. We want to build on the value of the transatlantic agenda. In particular, we will seek areas of concrete co-operation and action with the United States, building on the successful visit of President Bush to Europe last month. In his speech on 21 February, he was clear that he wanted a new approach to partnership as well. Across Europe, we must seize the opportunity and not let it slip at this vital moment.
	All that is also about security and stability. Twenty-five countries working together can contribute to stability and prosperity in an increasingly globalised world. Security and prosperity are linked. We can create better and safer lives for the citizens of the EU and others by working to reduce poverty. That is why I am proud that the EU—not just us, but the EU—is the largest contributor to aid. We should see ourselves in that context, as part of it.
	The justice and home affairs agenda will be carried forward in the EU's counter-terrorism action plan and the Hague justice and home affairs work programme, particularly to meet the negotiating deadlines on key measures such as the European evidence warrant and data retention. We want to see the completion of the strategy on radicalisation and recruitment by terrorist organisations, and progress towards increasing the security of EU travel documents. With the European security and defence programme, we have seen the first EU rapid-reaction battle groups coming on stream, a civilian headline goal being developed, and the European Defence Agency starting to work properly in 2005. We want to work with partners to make sure that all those developments take place.
	The issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, on Turkey is very important. We will work to ensure the successful launch of accession negotiations with Turkey on 3 October. I am not certain when, but the documents will be available to his committee as soon as possible. I hope that some will be available well before 3 October. It is an important step overall for the European Union. It is obviously important economically, and it is important to bring another nation into the family of more stable and prosperous nations with greater respect for human rights. It is enormously important because it will show that we can have a secular state in our Community with a majority-Muslim population. That is no small matter in global historical terms.
	Having seen the disturbing television footage of the demonstration in Turkey a few days ago, however, my honourable friend in another place, Denis MacShane, has made known directly the disquiet we feel about how that demonstration was handled and how it reflects on human rights issues. Announcements have been made in Turkey of action in connection with any of those against whom it can be proved that violent oppression occurred. That is probably a helpful step in a rather unhappy circumstance.
	There has been a huge amount of work across the European neighbourhood policy on Iraq, work by the quartet—including the EU—on the peace process in the Middle East, work on Iran, and work on the western Balkans where the EU is a decisive factor in bringing stability and peace. I could not address all those points tonight, but I want to say to my noble friend Lady Royall that there is not widespread evidence of gold-plating in this country. The guidance issued by Whitehall departments on EU directives stresses the importance of avoiding it, and we will continue to do so.
	I shall try to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, on Togo. With our EU colleagues, we were quick to condemn on 5 February the unconstitutional actions in Togo following the death of its last president, which led to his son being installed as president. We applaud the decision that he should step down and call for presidential elections as set out in the constitution, and we want free, fair and open elections in which all the appropriate candidates are able to run for election to the government of that country and its presidency. If more detail is needed, I will happily provide it.
	I say to the right reverend Prelate that there is much more to be done on banking co-operation. I am convinced that we will do it. As he says, aid in our country is not tied to commercial considerations. We will urge others to take the same view.
	I can tell my noble friend Lord Tomlinson that we will work hard to ensure that the further borders of the new Europe are properly maintained. Wider membership should ensure that we have closer collaboration on crucial cross-border issues—drugs, illegal immigration and people trafficking. But it is plain that we will have to address that with detailed care, given the extent to which those borders now go.
	I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, on the WEU Parliamentary Assembly, because there is much to be said and I would not manage that successfully this evening. I apologise for that.
	Regarding the points made by my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall, on the agency workers directive, the services directive is under discussion. This is an early moment in that discussion, but we must ensure that it emerges at the end of that to be in line with fundamental protections, including those relating to the rights of contract workers, covered in the Temporary Agency Workers Directive. Those remain our firm objectives.
	I apologise if I have missed points that have been raised. It has been a wide-ranging debate on a large issue. Most of all, I want to say to noble Lords who have taken part in this fine debate that it is essential for us that the people of our country are involved in these debates. It is essential for us that our Parliament is involved in these debates. If we carry matters forward in detail, we must ensure that both Houses of Parliament have that opportunity. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will publish a White Paper on the presidency in June, which my right honourable friend Jack Straw hopes to launch with a Statement.
	The Government look forward to briefing the Foreign Affairs Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee on their intentions. If that process is to be successful, in my view, it is vital that the views of all noble Lords are fed into the process. These are not closed loops in which a few of the cognoscenti take part. If we are serious that we want everyone to take part, let us show some evidence that we do—as we have this evening—because I believe that that is the way to the healthiest debate that we can achieve.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, while sympathising with the bizarre and peculiar isolation of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and the noble Lord, Lord Stephens, in their arguments—although the noble Baroness tried to be broader in her approach—the other contributions have been first-class and I, as the initiator of this debate, am particularly grateful for that and for the replies given by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman. Even when he is reading many points from a ministerial brief, he gives me the impression of being an enthusiastic European and I hope that I do not cause him any embarrassment in his distinguished career by saying that. As a result of this multi-faceted debate, which has covered so many points, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2005

Lord Rooker: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9 February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee] [11th Report from the Merits Committee].

Lord Rooker: My Lords, in summary, the regulations implement increases in the level of fees for applications for planning permission and deemed planning permission which, if approved by the House, will come into effect on 1 April this year.
	The fee increases proposed in the regulations are in line with the long-standing government policy that the overall income generated by planning application fees should cover the estimated costs incurred in handling those applications.
	The last time that there was a general increase in fees was in 2002 and before that in 1997. The 2002 increase followed a study commissioned by the then Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. That study identified a 14 per cent increase as the minimum necessary increase based on the information of costs available at that time.
	Following that, my department instituted a comprehensive survey of planning costs in all local authorities in England. We concluded that the annual cost of the planning system is around £204 million higher than previous research had shown. The difference was due to the failure of earlier studies to identify and include all overhead costs. The 2003 research found that fees would need to increase by an average 39 per cent in order to achieve near full cost recovery. Somewhat surprisingly, my department consulted on a fee increase of 17 per cent in 2004. Many people said, "That's not enough", and, therefore, we decided to re-consult in December on proposals to increase fees to near cost recovery.
	The Government therefore propose to increase fees by approximately 39 per cent, so that in aggregate across England, the income generated by planning application fees should better reflect the estimated costs incurred by local planning authorities.
	Increases will be across the board with proportionately higher increases for larger developments, where the planning fee is furthest from the cost of handling the application. We do not believe that these increases will act as a deterrent to development, as planning fees are a small proportion of the development costs.
	The increase in fees proposed in the draft regulations now before the House keeps fees at the lower end of the scale at modest levels, while introducing proportionately higher fees for the larger applications. I must stress that we expect local authorities to match this increase with a better service on handling planning applications. The fee increases should help to sustain improvements in performance of local authorities and complement the positive effects of the planning delivery grant. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9 February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee] [11th Report from the Merits Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that short, brief and succinct explanation of these regulations. I am delighted to say that we have no objection to them. Option C, the one that introduces the largest percentage increase, must be the right response. Having looked at the replies to the consultation on the website, it is clear that all local authorities have, surprisingly, agreed that that is the way forward.
	I wish to raise only two small points. First, it was notable that part of the consultation referred to mobile telephone masts and a decision as to whether there should be higher fees for them. Can the Minister confirm that, in light of the fact that it has been decided not to do anything about that at the moment, it will be kept under review, as there seems to be more public activity as a result of such applications than there has been in the past?
	Secondly, there is a suggestion, which I suspect is right, that the cost of e-applications is going down, due to the reduction in work involved. I hope that if that is right, local authorities will be able to keep the difference between the lower cost and the fee that they would normally automatically receive.
	This will perhaps give local authorities an opportunity to increase their staff resources and that will have an implication for the quicker turnaround of planning applications. So if the Minister can deal with my point about mobile masts, we are happy to support the regulations.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, we are pleased to support the regulations. They appear to have been widely consulted upon and there appears to be an alarming degree of consensus that it is the right way forward. Given the shortfall in fee income, compared to local authority expenditure on planning applications, it is better to increase the fees than it is for the burden to fall on the local council tax payer, which is currently the case.
	We also welcome the emphasis on the increase towards major planning applications, which also involve local authorities in a substantial expenditure, particularly when proposals are controversial or highly technical in nature. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, we share the concern about mobile telephone mast applications because, particularly for small rural district councils, their costs can be extremely high if they are controversial and if there has been substantial consultation and to-ing and fro-ing.
	But cost recovery has to work both ways and it is only right that applicants of all sorts should have a clear understanding of the level of service they should expect from their planning authority. As the Minister said, some research has taken place into the establishment of cost standards and indicators. Can the Minister say whether there are proposals for such costs and the fee levels that flow from them to be revised on a regular basis, rather than ad hoc, as appears to have been the case until now?
	Finally, do the Government have any plans to deal with those instances where statutory consultees fail to respond in time in some cases, which can freeze the application process? It is the planning authority rather than the consultees who carry liability for the slow processing of the application. I know that that is a concern, particularly with the Highways Agency. But, apart from those points, we are happy to support the regulations.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful for the responses of the two noble Baronesses. On the issue of mobile phone masts, I can only say that at present we do not have enough information to justify a larger increase. We would have to subject this area to further evidence-gathering and research. But I fully take on board the point that an application for a mast—that is, for those that require planning permission; not all do, which in some ways is part of the argument—can be very costly to small local authorities.
	Frankly, this will not be the last increase in fees. Obviously, since 1997 there will have been two five-year gaps, and there is a large increase this time because of the under-collection on the previous occasion with overheads not having been taken into account.
	On the second point regarding e-applications, one can always argue that in the long term digital technology prices will come down. This is not intended to be a profit-generating exercise. The fees are now being set for the foreseeable future. Obviously, when they are reviewed, that will be done on the same basis as these fees for cost-recovery purposes and, if the costs have gone down, clearly that will have to be reflected. As I said, the fees are not applied for profit-making purposes, and it is therefore only legitimate that we should try to recover the costs—that is, the real costs, or as near as we can get to them.
	I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. When she sat down, I did not make a note of the last point that she raised.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I am happy to help out the Minister. It concerned the question of statutory consultees, such as the Highways Agency.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall pursue that point. Frankly, as I know from my discussions in the department, these days there is more pressure on the statutory authorities to co-operate and to realise that they are part of government in the widest sense. They are not a law unto themselves and they are expected to co-operate in partnership with local authorities and the other bodies because there are statutory consultees. We expect them to perform efficiently, which means delivering answers in good time and not causing greater costs to be incurred.
	So, if and when there are complaints from local authorities, we in the ODPM would like to know about them. Such complaints affect performance, on which the authorities are measured, and it would be very unfair if they received a lower performance assessment because of other bodies. Therefore, we need to ensure that the buck stops in the right place. Having said that, I am very grateful for the responses of the two noble Baronesses.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2005

Lord Rooker: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23 February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Rooker: My Lords, this is not a set of regulations that I thought I would have to bring back to the House. Noble Lords will recall that we debated these regulations in some detail on 9 December last year. They brought into effect the transition scheme for the 2005 revaluation of non-domestic properties. I want to emphasise that tonight we are discussing businesses—that is, not dwellings or people's homes. The scheme phases in increases and reductions in rate bills for properties—that is, non-domestic properties—shown on the local ratings lists at 1 April 2005. The regulations provide authorities with the mechanism for calculating bills.
	Regrettably there is an error that none of us spotted. In two places, references to 1 April 2000 should be 1 April 2005. The amendment before the House will correct that and ensure that the regulations are fully operable. We are also taking the opportunity to make two minor technical amendments. Again, those do not change the sense of the regulations but simply help to clarify interpretation.
	The amendments rectify a drafting error and do not affect the policy intention behind the 2004 regulations that have already been debated and approved in both Houses. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23 February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, there is a real temptation to go over the concerns and anxieties about those who are going to benefit from the reduction and about the delay in payments and a temptation to have another half-hour's debate. However, the Minister will be delighted to know that I shall not go over all that again, although possibly we shall have an opportunity to do so on another occasion.
	I understand that these regulations correct something which perhaps each of us should have noticed originally, and I have no objection to these technical amendments being made.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, not having been in the House or, indeed, on the Front Bench at the time, I can feel a certain amount of smugness on this issue. However, this is probably an occasion when it is better to take note of my mother's maxim of "least said, soonest mended", and so we are happy to support the regulations.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Code of Audit Practice for Local NHS Bodies (2005)

Lord Rooker: rose to move, That the draft Code of Audit Practice laid before the House on 27 January be approved.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, in moving this code of practice, I shall speak also to the Code of Audit Practice for Local Government Bodies (2005).
	A new code of audit practice for local authorities and the National Health Service in England has been prepared by the Audit Commission and is now presented for approval by this House.
	The commission has prepared separate codes for local government and the NHS. They are designed primarily to reflect the increasingly divergent accounting, corporate governance and performance management frameworks in the two sectors. The codes are the Audit Commission's documents. They have been prepared by the independent commission, as required by statute, to be used by the independent professional auditors which it appoints to audit local government and National Health Service bodies.
	The codes prescribe the way in which external auditors of local authorities and NHS bodies carry out their statutory audit duties. The Audit Commission Act 1998 requires the commission to review the code and gain approval by affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament every five years. The current code was approved in March 2000, and alterations to that code—to introduce a "lighter touch" audit for small parish councils—were laid before Parliament in 2002. The end of the five-year period for the current code remains 28 March—that is, this month.
	Previous codes have applied to both England and Wales. Legislation that has gone through the House in the mean time has created a new system and in Wales a new code is being prepared by the Auditor General. So these codes apply only to England.
	In preparing the two codes, the Commission consulted widely, engaging key organisations that represent local government, the health service, the accountancy profession and the national audit agencies at each stage. It has worked collaboratively with the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, known as the Healthcare Commission, and consulted recognised representatives and associations of audited bodies on the key issues and options for change.
	The commission has agreed with the Healthcare Commission those parts of the NHS code which relate to auditors' local value-for-money work at NHS bodies. This is a requirement of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003.
	This collaborative, inclusive approach has been key to producing the high-level documents before us today. A wide consensus among all concerned provides the assurance that they present an effective contribution to the accountability framework. The codes reflect significant changes in the operating environment of local government and NHS bodies and in auditing standards and practice since the current code was prepared. The move towards the strategic regulation, described in the commission's strategic plan 2004-07, has governed the commission's objectives in revising the code. A more streamlined, risk-based approach to audit, targeted to areas where auditors have the most to contribute to improvement, has been the principal aim under strategic regulation, along with a stronger emphasis on value for money and clearer reporting of audit results.
	The codes will come into effect once approved in this House and transitional provisions set out in Appendix 2 to each code apply to relevant audit work that relates to the financial years ending on or before 31 March 2005, completed before 31 December 2005. These transitional provisions will lapse with effect from 1 January 2006.
	The codes have been drafted in the context of our continuing reform and modernisation agendas for local government and the National Health Service. Effective external audit is an essential part of the scrutiny regime in local government and is central to the development of a modern, patient-focused healthcare system for the NHS. The code provides assurance that an effective independent audit will be carried out.
	The codes are very important documents. They are key elements of the accountability framework for local government and the National Health Service. It is through audit that everyone can be assured that resources are being used effectively and for the purpose for which they were intended. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft Code of Audit Practice laid before the House on 27 January be approved.—(Lord Rooker.)

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for dealing with both these codes of practice at the same time. As far as I can see, they vary very little between one and the other, except for the implication for the National Health Service and foundation trusts—now coming into focus more and more—and the risk element, which is now a great part of the regulator's interest in what is being done in the health service.
	There is nothing very much that I want to ask about this, except to say that there is a refreshing clarity about the codes. At least they are written in a way that we can all read, and there seems to me to be a commendable lack of jargon. I am glad to note that one of the requirements under this is that the auditors' report should replicate that, and there should be a refreshing lack of jargon there. It says that it should be in a "clear narrative style", and that is good.
	I do not know whether it is worth trailing this, but I wonder whether the Minister would refer to the working or the auditing of partnership bodies. One of the areas that has been changed in these new codes is to take into account the fact that local authorities and the National Health Service are, more and more, working either with each other or with other bodies—local authorities, social services, voluntary bodies. I assume that the auditing of those partnership bodies will be done separately but, if necessary, the auditors will come together with a report. In some cases, local authorities are now running combined budgets—for example, they are together putting money into a separate pot—and it seems to me that there is a greater risk where this is happening than where there is single control over a budget. If the Minister knows the answer to that, I shall be grateful. If he does not, then I should be grateful to receive a short reply about it at some stage.
	I am also assuming—I think I heard the Minister say that this was correct—that one of the three current responsibilities under the codes, which are being reduced to two, is to reflect the value-for-money work that will be done by the auditors in relation not only to the resources but also to the way that they are effectively being managed. Quite often, the auditors carry out specific value-for-money projects and I am assuming that those are subsumed in the two areas, rather than being specifically mentioned, as they were in the three previously. Having said that, I think that there is nothing for me to do other than to support the codes.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I shall speak to both codes and start by declaring an interest. I was a member of the board of the Audit Commission when the codes were drawn up, which would make it very difficult for me to offer any criticism of them, were I inclined to do so.
	It is worth observing at the start that discussion about the Audit Commission and its role usually centres on inspection through comprehensive performance assessment or the reports that it produces but, in fact, the bulk of the work is the day-to-day audit process, which is little spoken of. There is sometimes a danger in debate about regulation that we lose sight of the fact that much of the work done by the Audit Commission is in the form of external audit.
	I think that we would all agree that all services and organisations need some form of external audit. In some, it needs to be more closely monitored because the risk is greater. In some areas, the risk is great because the organisation itself is weak; and in others, the risk is inherent in the service. By its nature, the failure of an NHS body can have catastrophic results for the people that it serves.
	Therefore, from these Benches, we welcome the principles of strategic regulation that underpin the approach, because audit that is risk-based and proportionate is essential. We certainly want clear links with the inspection regime. Linking audit and inspection for local government ought not to be too difficult, because they are both under the auspices of the Audit Commission. It is rather different in the health sector, where different bodies do both jobs. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, also makes a powerful point about the audit of partnership bodies.
	Finally, if the audits are to be meaningful to the public, it is essential that they are as understandable and free of jargon as possible. We support the approach of the Audit Commission in trying to ensure that.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I think that somewhere along the line, I should have declared an interest both as a member of a local authority and chairman of a health trust.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am again grateful to the two noble Baronesses for their comments. I agree about the function of external audit. We are dealing with vast amounts of public money, if one considers local government and the NHS, and the public has every right to be interested and involved and to have the reports and information available in a readily understandable way, in the same way as Parliament does with the National Audit Office. The noble Baroness is quite right: the vast majority of work is the unsung, daily grind of the audit that is crucial. The value-for-money reports and inspections at local government level are somewhat different and probably get a higher profile. Nevertheless, the big exercise of work is day-to-day.
	I am very grateful that the noble Baroness raised the good point about partnership bodies because that gives me an opportunity to put this on record. There is more and more partnership working today. I spent about six hours today with about 20—probably more—local strategic partnerships dealing with local government right across the piece. There is more and more of that and we encourage the private and voluntary sector to be involved in that area. However, where organisations are set up and public money is going into partnerships, the auditors have the statutory power to follow that public money into partnerships.
	Let me be absolutely clear, there are no no-go areas, but there are professional protocols governing all auditors for different partners to join up their work. Obviously, people coming into a partnership—for example, LSPs, although they are not delivery mechanisms—may not be part of local government. Where there are partnerships and one can be assured that public money is going into the partnership, our auditors, the Audit Commission, have the power under law to follow that public money into the partnership to ensure that everything is okay.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Code of Audit Practice for Local Government Bodies (2005)

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft Code of Audit Practice laid before the House on 27 January be approved.—(Lord Rooker.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Renewables Obligation Order 2005

Lord Triesman: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9 February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee] [12th Report from the Merits Committee].

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I just heard the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, say that there was a commendable lack of obscure terminology in the last orders. I fear that I can make no such claim for this order. I apologise in advance for the textual density of the order, but there we are.
	The Government are bringing forward the order to make changes to the renewables obligation to address some current concerns. A number of those changes give effect to powers taken under the Energy Act 2004. In that context, I should like to express our gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, for her contribution to our consideration of those issues and for enabling several of the debates that touched on them during the passage of that Bill.
	Other changes respond to recent developments in the renewables market. The change has been subject to widespread consultation with industry, consumer organisations and regulatory bodies over the past year.
	As noble Lords will be aware, the renewables obligation was introduced in April 2002 as the Government's key mechanism for encouraging the development of renewable generation capacity. We committed in the energy White Paper to carry out a review of the obligation in 2005-06. That review is taking place separately to address longer-term issues concerned with the obligation and to ensure its continued effectiveness.
	However, the first years of operation have raised some issues that need dealing with now. That is what the order seeks to do. The draft Renewables Obligation Order 2005 before your Lordships introduces five main changes. In addition to those modifications, it also takes the opportunity to consolidate into one order the Renewables Obligation Order 2002 and the Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2004.
	The obligation currently requires all licensed electricity suppliers in England and Wales to provide the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority—Ofgem—with renewables obligation certificates, known as ROCs, issued under the 2002 order or under the Scottish Renewables Obligation, demonstrating the supply of a specified quantity of renewables electricity to customers.
	I will be referring to a variety of different certificates—ROCs, Northern Ireland ROCs and Scottish ROCs—bringing back, I hope, happy memories of the debates in Committee. For convenience, I will use the term "ROCs" throughout. The quantity is set as an increasing percentage of the electricity supplied by each supplier. As an alternative to providing ROCS, suppliers can pay a buyout price to Ofgem for all or any part of that percentage which is not covered by the presentation of ROCs, or they can combine the two options.
	The money paid to Ofgem, known as the buy-out fund, is then recycled to suppliers who have presented ROCs. The recycling mechanism provides the incentive for suppliers to obtain ROCs, as suppliers who rely on the buy-out route in effect subsidise their competitors.
	The first change in the order increases the level of the obligation for the years between 2010-11 and 2015-16. The level of the obligation is currently set at 4.9 per cent, rising to 5.5 per cent in 2005-06 and in stages to 10.4 per cent in 2010. To help achieve the Government's target of 10 per cent of electricity generation from renewable sources of energy by 2010 it is essential that the industry has the confidence to invest in longer-term projects in the knowledge that that will be supported beyond 2010. We have therefore responded to calls from industry for increased confidence in the longer term. The order will extend the level of the obligation, in stages, to 15.4 per cent by 2015-16.
	The second change relates to the introduction of the Northern Ireland Renewables Obligation—known also as the NIRO—which is expected to come into force from 1 April this year. Noble Lords will recall that the Government took powers in the Energy Act 2004 for the recognition and tradability of ROCs between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The change to our order gives effect to those powers by allowing certificates issued to generators under the NIRO—known as NIROCs—to be produced to Ofgem by suppliers in England and Wales in compliance with their own renewables obligation.
	Those changes, together with corresponding changes being made to the Scottish Renewables Obligation and provisions in the Northern Ireland Renewables Obligation, enable us to move from a Great Britain-wide system of tradable certificates for demonstrating the supply of eligible renewables electricity to a UK-wide one. By allowing NIROCs access to a wider market, the Northern Ireland Renewables Obligation will become economically viable, despite the small size of the Northern Ireland market.
	The third change made by the order introduces a single recycling mechanism for the UK buy-out funds. ROCs are portable and can be redeemed in either Scotland or England and Wales—and soon in Northern Ireland—without the need to prove the physical flow of electricity. The current arrangements could offer an opportunity for a supplier with a large share of one of the smaller markets to under-present ROCs there and to present extra ROCs in England and Wales so forcing the recycle payments per ROC in the smaller market to rise at the expense of those in the larger.
	That situation could be further complicated with the introduction of the Northern Ireland obligation. Following representations from industry, the Government are committed to taking steps to end this opportunity for what is simply arbitrage between the funds through the introduction of a single recycling mechanism. That will ensure that the recycling value of a ROC will be the same throughout the UK.
	The fourth change concerns measures to address the issues raised by the shortfall in the buy-out fund, following the failure of a major supplier during the first year of the obligation. As noble Lords will recall, that matter was discussed a great deal during the Energy Bill. The Government are grateful for the contributions, which we took as being wholly positive, from Members on all sides of this House. This draft order contains two measures exercising the powers taken under the Energy Act to mitigate such shortfalls. These are surcharges on late payments and a mutualisation process in the event of a shortfall.
	We intend that by imposing a surcharge on late payments to the buy-out fund, suppliers will have a strong incentive to treat their commitments under the renewables obligation seriously and comply with the obligation on time. The surcharge will be set at 5 per cent over the Bank of England base rate to ensure prompt payment and it will be chargeable on a daily basis. Any late payments made, and the associated surcharges, will go into a separate fund that will be recycled to ROC holders in the same way as the buy-out fund for that period. The late payment period will run for two months, after which time suppliers who have not complied with their renewables obligation in full will be subject to Ofgem's enforcement procedures.
	Under mutualisation provisions being introduced, where a shortfall has occurred in the buy-out fund, each supplier in the market at the time when the shortfall occurs will be required to contribute an additional sum to make up the shortfall. The resulting mutualisation fund will then be distributed to those suppliers who presented ROCs during the obligation period in question.
	Under mutualisation, each supplier bears some of the cost. However, those suppliers presenting ROCs will receive recycled payments from the mutualisation fund. The aim of mutualisation is to protect ROC prices and investor confidence in the renewables market following a shortfall.
	To prevent mutualisation being triggered for very small shortfalls a trigger level of £1 million per 1 per cent of the obligation has been set. To put that into quantified terms: for the 2005-06 period mutualisation would not be triggered unless the shortfall totals at least £5.5 million.
	Just as we have set triggers for mutualisation, we have set a cap on the level of mutualisation payments recovered. Our aim is to set the cap at a level that will ensure that the cost to consumers is kept at an acceptable level while still sufficiently high to retain confidence following a shortfall. The cap will be set at £200 million linked to RPI. That would mean that the cap would be triggered only in the event of the failure of one of the major suppliers.
	In order that suppliers can recover the costs of their mutualisation payments, payments will start in the second obligation period following the shortfall and will be spread over four quarterly payments. That reduces the risk of increased contributions causing further supplier failure.
	I should perhaps note that two steps were discussed during the passage of the Energy Bill which we are not planning to take at this stage. One is netting off defaults in a supplier's obligation against that supplier's share of recycling payments. While it is an attractive idea, it has proved impossible to implement without delaying recycling of the buy-out fund. The other is shorter obligation periods. Research from consultants showed that if mutualisation were introduced, shorter obligation periods would be unlikely to add significant value in terms of restoring confidence. That said, there are other potential benefits from shorter obligation periods. It is unquestionably a balance between two propositions. These are being addressed in the context of the RO review, which, as I said, is taking place.
	The last change will provide small generators with more flexibility on how they claim ROCs. Last year we made an amendment so that the entitlement of small generators—those generating up to 50 kilowatts—to ROCs for their electricity would be calculated annually, thus giving small generators access to ROCs for the first time.
	We shall now enable smaller generating stations to elect for either annual or monthly ROC declarations. I commend the order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9 February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee] [12th Report from the Merits Committee].—(Lord Triesman.)

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. As he said, it is a massive paper, and with the explanatory notes and the regulatory impact assessment attached to the back, it makes an impressive document.
	I shall begin by introducing one or two concerns about the order. Since it establishes a United Kingdom regime for dealing with renewable obligation certificates, it is not quite right to say that the order extends only to England and Wales. I accept that the order deals largely with England and Wales, but at the very least, it imposes obligations on Northern Ireland to establish a system that complies and is consistent with this order. There is also an obligation on the Scottish Parliament to pass its own legislation in a form that is consistent with the operation of this order. The description of it applying only to England and Wales is inaccurate. I may be being pedantic, but I am in that sort of a mood. We have galloped through the other orders so quickly that a little delay is perhaps permissible.
	I have another problem with the order. Paragraph 4(10)(d) and (e) refers to a body called "the Authority". I have been unable to find a definition. It is not in the Electricity Act 1989 under which power the order is published. If it were in the earlier orders, it has been rescinded because they are revoked by this order. It is not in the interpretation paragraph 2. I gave the noble Lord notice of my questions, and hope that he has a satisfactory answer to them. I am sure that he has, and I shall be interested to hear the explanation.
	While we support and welcome the order, it raises a number of questions. We accept that we are in a rapidly moving situation with regard to energy supply. The order takes the renewables obligation forward to 2016 and then says that the level achieved then will apply until 2027.
	The first statement is just about consistent with the Government's targets for renewables, but the second part of the statement certainly is not consistent with the long-term ambition to have 60 per cent of energy coming from renewable sources by 2050. I wonder what the Government intend to do.
	Another review of the subject is coming up this year. We are led to believe that there might be an energy White Paper later this year, or perhaps next year, depending on circumstances, in which no doubt all the balls will be thrown in the air, revealing a different pattern when they fall. I cannot ask the Minister to anticipate that, but an indication of the scope of the review will be helpful.
	The background to this is the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. One aspect that causes some concern is the almost total reliance of the Government on wind energy as the great renewable solution.
	The problem that I have with what we are doing at this stage is simply this: the electricity industry always runs with a certain amount of spare capacity spun up and running—and therefore emitting carbon dioxide—in case something goes wrong. For example, if another power station breaks down and there is a sudden surge in demand, you cannot start a power station at the flick of a switch, by and large, although gas power stations are fairly quick.
	As we all know, the problem with the wind is that it is unreliable—it is as fickle as the wind we generate in this chamber, dare I say—and once we take the capacity of wind generation above the spare capacity which the industry would normally expect to carry, we would have to begin to increase the spun-up and running reserve capacity in case the wind dropped. At that point, we would start to increase the emissions of carbon dioxide and the wind would cease to be quite as beneficial as we would wish. So there is a little problem there.
	The order deals with small generators, but how will it affect a place such as Woking where the council has put in place a remarkably effective programme to reduce its own energy emissions? This includes a great deal of electricity generation within the borough which, at times, has to be exported to the grid when it produces a surplus. The council has a number of its own-line systems and, because it does not have the overhead transmission and other costs of the grid, it can produce electricity for the people in the borough cheaper than can be done on the grid. So, of course, everyone signs up to it.
	My next question—perhaps it is not affected by this grid but I shall touch on another aspect in a moment—is how far are we moving to adapting the grid in the new system so that instead of being a grid that conveys electricity from the generator to the customer, it becomes a circulation pool in which in many instances—as will have to happen if we are to get our energy sources under control—the customers supply energy back to the grid? That very fundamental change will have to come about and the grid will become a kind of reservoir of electricity, with far more sources than we are at present accustomed to seeing.
	My final question concerns the report of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, which draws attention to the report of the National Audit Office on Renewable Energy published on 7 February. Paragraph 26 of the NAO report states:
	"In 2001, the Department decided to include live Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation sites in the Renewables Obligation. This more than doubled the supply of Renewables Obligation Certificates . . . and thus significantly aided the introduction of the Renewables Obligation".
	That is a matter of history. The report continues:
	"However, the inclusion of these sites has increased the cost to electricity consumers, but has benefited the Exchequer in equal measure. The size of this transfer is likely to be in the range of £550 million to £1 billion over the period to 2010. The additional payments made by consumers are held in a fund administered by Ofgem".
	I assume that it is in a little box marked "Ofgem" in the Chancellor's general fund and not in a wallet in his back pocket.
	Can the Minister throw some light on what the Government think should happen to those funds which are being contributed at this time by electricity consumers and appear to be accumulating without a destination? I have no doubt that all sorts of people will be able to think of all sorts of wonderful ideas. That is in part relevant to the order. I would welcome anything the Minister can tell us.
	In general we support the order but we have some questions.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this order and the further developments it makes in the renewables markets.
	I particularly welcome the Minister's statement that part of the intention of the order is to encourage more certainty in the market. That is to be welcomed. There was wide consultation on the order and the fact that there were very few grumbles about it shows that the Government have by and large got the order right.
	I am glad the Minister clarified the point about small electricity generators because there has been confusion over whether they would be able to claim monthly or yearly payments. The Minister made that clear in his statement.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I too searched for the definition of who the authority was, both in the Explanatory Notes and in the order. I came to the conclusion that it was Ofgem, but that is not made clear. I am glad that the noble Lord could not find it either. It probably does not exist as a definition and that is an oversight. If one takes a wider view of how the Government intend this order to work and how they see it being superseded in time by another order, the role of Ofgem is particularly important.
	The order envisages that Ofgem will act as the administrator for the scheme as it has since the scheme's introduction in 2002. The Minister will recall that Ofgem has the role of a regulator. During the passage of the Energy Act, I was pleased that the Government conceded to our amendment and brought in their own in order to give Ofgem a sustainability duty. That duty as a regulator is extremely important and not only in the context of the UK. As the European Union looks to regulate the energy market that is becoming liberalised all over Europe and looks towards models of how to regulate such a market, it may well look towards Ofgem as an excellent model of regulation, particularly now that Ofgem has a sustainability duty. It will be a useful model for Europe to look to.
	However, there are a couple of problems in the way that this order envisages Ofgem's role. I am grateful to the Renewable Power Association for laying out the problems so clearly. They are as follows. As the Minister admitted, the order is very wordy because at the moment Ofgem is the administrator for the scheme. Ofgem has to administrate the renewables obligation order and it is laid down in legislation exactly how it should do that. That conflicts with its role as a regulator. Surely the regulator should be looking for the outcome that produces sustainability. In having to act as the administrator of the scheme, it will probably take its eye off the ball when it comes to being the regulator—which should be looking for outcomes.
	I realise that this argument is some way down the road, because we shall live with this order for a while. When whichever party forms the government after the election considers renewing the order, and changing it, it will be really important to consider the role of Ofgem and the kind of split that there should be in the governance structure from market operation to regulation.
	I want to make a couple of other points as we are talking about how the renewables obligation works. The most important one is how this affects consumers. A difficulty that I have come across personally and from talking to other people who have tried to switch to renewable energy electricity—the so-called greener electricity—is how one can tell whether the energy is green. Some generators supply all their electricity, and some seem to supply as little at 10 per cent of their electricity, from renewable energy sources. Some invest quite large amounts and some invest remarkably little in new forms of renewable energy. I am sure that, much of the time, consumers assume that the figure, in both cases, is 100 per cent.
	My household has just switched to a firm called Good Energy, and 100 per cent of its energy comes from renewable sources. The clearest website that I have found so far is that of Friends of the Earth, which details all the tariffs. The Minister may well be aware of the ins and outs of each company, but if he went to that website he would find that only four suppliers are acceptable in terms of where they source their supplies and investments. There is a much longer list of suppliers which advertise widely to consumers as supplying green electricity but which do not meet the Friends of the Earth criteria. I do not believe that Friends of the Earth has set its expectations ridiculously high.
	At the moment the Energy Saving Trust is running a campaign on these matters. I believe that the Government need to help people—also Ofgem may want to consider such a role—to find out whether they are buying green energy or apparently very light green energy and so, in my view, being conned.
	Some of those issues need to be resolved because the Government, with this renewables obligation order, clearly have the good intention of encouraging the market, but if consumers are not clear about what they are buying, the market might fall into disrepute, which would be an enormous shame. Those are my current concerns.
	One remark about Ofgem that I believe is worthy of mention is the fact that at the moment it is running an excellent series of seminars, the first of which I attended last week. They look at the future of the energy market and how it might be regulated. Ofgem invited several Members from this House and the other place. I hope that officials in the Minister's department will also benefit from some of the forward-looking thoughts that will arise during the seminars. In the mean time, I am pleased to support the order.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. I should pay tribute to the work that both undertook during the passage of the Energy Bill. This evening feels like a reunion.
	I shall start with some practical matters. First, the definition is found in Section 3A of the Electricity Act 1989, which was inserted into the Utilities Act 2000. It was further provided in Section 3A of the Electricity Act, and it is the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority. I am happy to say that, even without the benefit of notes, reading the order last night I found on page 31—at the top, in the Explanatory Memorandum—that it does explicitly say that it is the,
	"Gas and Electricity Markets Authority ('the Authority')".
	That is the authority as it is referred to throughout the order. I hope that clarifies the position.
	Secondly, I should like to say a few words about the geographical extent of the order.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am sorry. I do take what the Minister has said but that is part of the Explanatory Memorandum. I am not sure how far the Explanatory Memorandum is part of the order.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is quite right. The Explanatory Memorandum is not part of the order. The two Acts I referred to provide the definition. With so many other words in the order perhaps it would not have suffered greatly if it had had those words repeated as well. The Explanatory Memorandum refers to how it is used in the order, and its provenance is the legislative elements that I mentioned.
	As I have said, the order applies only to suppliers who supply electricity in England and Wales. So the order is accurate in referring to them. I also refer noble Lords to another of the documents which I painstakingly went through, the Explanatory Memorandum to the Renewables Obligation Order 2005. In two paragraphs, it sets out these matters. The article of the Energy (Northern Ireland) Energy Order 2003, as amended by the Energy Act and so on, going through the string of provenance issues, covering Northern Ireland, links Northern Ireland to the order, in as much as it is in scope for those purposes. I understand that that legislation was completed in February. I do not have the exact date, for which I apologise.
	In the case of Scotland, following the Executive devolution of the relevant powers, a process is being gone through which will be completed on 24 March. It is not completed yet, but we do not at present have any reason to think that it will not be, in terms which put the final bits of the jigsaw together.
	In a document that was as long and as complicated, I was also looking for the bits of the jigsaw. I am not sure whether it is a relief that it was not longer or that it should have been there. Separate orders, in other words, along similar lines have or will be provided. It is not nitpicking in any way to ensure that we have got all of this right.
	I turn to the points that noble Lords have made. First, on consistency with targets, what is the relevance of the dates 2016 and 2027? The forthcoming renewables obligation review will consider the future levels of the obligation beyond 2015. The point in going to 2015, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, said, is of course a matter of confidence that people can feel in the market. The Government's target, however, must be consistently looked at. The 2050 target is a 60 per cent reduction in carbon emissions, not a 60 per cent increase in renewables. Those two may not be exactly the same thing. One may be arrived at slightly differently from the other. In any event, the review will take place.
	I turn to the question of wind capacity and the reliance on it, and how it meshes with spare capacity at times when that is needed, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. While wind is obviously intermittent, we nonetheless need to keep in proportion the nature of the problem that intermittency might cause. Spare capacity, as the noble Lord said, is maintained anyway, to cope with any breakdown of plant.
	We believe that no significant additional spare capacity would be needed to meet the 10 per cent target. I expect that we will talk about many sources of energy as we go forward, but we will talk a good deal more about waves, tidal movement, biomass, cleaner coal, and carbon capture—all of those things to which we are committed and about which we have had many good debates.
	I turn to the interesting example of Woking, just to clarify its position . Woking is an unlicensed network, and so Woking council is not subject to the obligation, nor does it benefit from ROCS from the electricity that it generates. In the RO review, we are looking at ways to improve access to ROCS for the micro generators—a point that I made in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, in his Renewable Energy Bill. It is plainly right that we should look at micro generation in a way which is more imaginative. I think that the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, illustrate that greater sense of imagination about the flow backwards and forwards that will be needed.
	The final point, I think, is about the NFFO contracts and the money being generated. A surplus has accumulated. It continues to do so from sales of electricity under the NFFO contracts and auction proceeds of electricity and ROCS under those contracts. Noble Lords will be aware—we went over this in Committee in the Sustainable Energy Bill as well—that the Sustainable Energy Act 2003 has made provision for £60 million of the surplus to be spent on renewable energy projects. No decisions have as yet been taken on the use of the remainder of the fund in England and Wales, apart from the need to keep £30 million in reserve. Noble Lords will be familiar with that answer from a previous occasion. I have just to acknowledge today that we are no further forward than when I had the last opportunity to deal with that issue. It is public money. It should be lodged in the Consolidated Fund. But no decision has been taken on how it should be used.
	I turn briefly to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I agree very strongly with her that we may have a model for sustainability here that will be of interest to other partners in the European Union. I dearly hope so. I think that it may be the case—I do not want to make a commitment that would be out of place, but I think it may be the case—that, as part of our presidency when we are dealing with climate change issues and so on, it may very well be an opportunity to see that discussion progress. I welcome her insertion of that thought into not just this evening's debate but the work that we carry forward.
	I think that it is too early to make any judgment about whether Ofgem as an administrator and as regulator will find that its roles are in any kind of conflict. I can only say that any new machinery should always be looked at and that any reviewing process should take account of that. But I think at this stage—and I do not mean this as any disparagement at all of the point made—that it would be overly bureaucratic to create two organisations. We are quite good at creating organisations, but I suspect that we are not so good at getting rid of them.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, perhaps I should have included one detail just to explain to the Minister why I think it is so important. Not only does Ofgem's holding of two roles mean that legislation has to be written in this sort of detail, rather than looking for outcomes, but the sheer scale of the sums involved is huge. The sum for ROCS is currently £400 million, but by 2015 it will be £2 billion. At such a scale, it is really something to allow the market to decide how that investment is being made and administered and for the regulator to be so busy regulating in the way envisaged when the regulation was initially set up.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the point is very well made and I take it very positively. We do not yet know how the developments that have started relatively recently will mature, but they will mature against a background with some very large changes. I wholly accept that point. All I would say is that the administration of the RO and consultation on it is in the review that is due to be issued shortly. I think that we will have the opportunity to reconsider in some detail all of those matters.
	Finally, again, I agree that consumers need to be clear about what they are buying, and whether it is green—although I know that with electricity you cannot tell that just by looking. The green offering should be subject to advertising regulation and the greatest possible transparency about sourcing. Those were points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I note her concerns, and we will keep this matter under close review.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Prevention of Terrorism Bill

Bill returned from the Commons with certain Lords amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement; with certain other Lords amendments disagreed to but with amendments proposed in lieu thereof; with certain other Lords amendments disagreed to but with amendments to the words so restored to the Bill; with certain other Lords amendments agreed to with amendments; and with the remaining Lords amendments agreed to; it was ordered that the Commons amendments and reasons be printed.
	House adjourned at nine o'clock.